Because if there's someone out there who truly knows what is right for a young teenage girl, it's a young twenty something gun-toting christian conservative male. Riiiight.
Are you actually arguing that "If she doesn't want the consequences then she shouldn't be taking the risk." is not a good approach to behaviour? And how does this advice come from a twenty something, gun-toting christian conservative male?
Women don't just 'become' pregnant, (excluding rape) women willingly have sex, which can lead to pregnancy. If you aren't willing to deal with pregnancy, you shouldn't have sex. It is simple.
First off, you response was reasoned up until the end. I spit on you is the quickest way to end constructive debate, though I don't necessarily feel you care to have that, since you view Evangelical Christians as not worthy of your consideration. I am not an EC, though I am Christian and am offended by constant attacks on a religious group, regardless of whom they are. Isolating them based on their faith seems to be restricted in America to EC's, while it manifests itself as rabid Antisemitism in Europe and various clashes around the globe.
and are arguably, not harming anyone
There in lies the rub. People, both Christians and non-Christians can and do hold the belief that Abortion and Gay Marriage are wrong. The former since it is state sponsored murder to them, the latter because of the negative effects they believe it will have on society. A fringe may argue to outlaw homosexuality, but grouping those together with mainstream anti-gay marriage advocates is both disingenuous and wrong. Why do we outlaw incestual marriages or polygamous ones? Can those arguments plausibly apply to same sex marriages? That is the real debate.
while they aren't doing anything with their worthless opinions that affects you in any way.
This isn't true, so far as those who argue against 'moral' issues are concerned. Abortion is a question of state sponsored murder for many people, so saying it doesn't affect them is equivalent to saying we should allow murders to go free so long as they don't murder me. There are plenty of people opposed to Gay Marriage based not on religion, but on the belief, however well founded, that altering the historical role of marriage in society can be detrimental to the health and sustainability of society as a whole. That argument is generally the position held by supporters of civil unions and some of the more strict positions.
Also, legal institutionalizing of Gay Marriage(and possibly civil unions) is forcing that set of beliefs (that there is nothing different between same and mixed sexed couples) 'down their throats' as you put it. You may take this as fact, but it is a matter of opinion to some if not most people.
I do hope you see the hypocrisy in saying Group A shouldn't push their beliefs, while Group B should because their beliefs a) are better, b) are right or c) are mine.
You are violating other people rights by denying them life. No one has ever argued you have the right to do that. However using morals, gleanerd from the Bible or from your parents or wherever, to argue for or against laws is a long rooted American tradition. I've posted about the jurisprudence regarding Gay Marriage elsewhere, as it is a complicated legal issue. If however you reject the application of morals into law, whomever's morals they are, then I assume you argue for extreme libertarianism and a laisez-faire government which only protects life and property, as everything else is basically a moral call.
I object to singling out one sect of people and degrading and debasing them based on their belief system, while holding up people with similar beliefs as intelligent and reasonable.
And by asserting that a form of christianity doesn't have a place in the world anymore, are there more belief sets we can eliminate? How about socialism? What if your belief system was suddenly determined to not have a place in this world? Who is the arbiter of that?
Wooo, felt good to get that out didn't it?
Call fundamentalist religious people dumb for having faith in something greater than man, and that makes you smart?
I'll say this to you, as I say to a lot of people who belittle the religious/moral, PROVE THEM WRONG!
Until you can definitively prove them wrong on God or their faith, your opinion on the matter isn't worth it's wait in salt.
1) Does the government, in this case state government, have the jurisdiction to sanction marriage?
2) If so, what limits should be placed on those santionings
If you don't affirm #1, #2 is pointless.
If you do affirm #1, then #2 becomes extremely important. Currently, gays or straights don't have different laws goverening who they can marry. While it's true I can't marry another man, that gets dismissed because I don't want to.
We currently have ceded government the power sanction marriage, and with that not sanction and in some cases make illegal, marriages between two consenting adults it deems unfit. These include siblings and polygamy historically. Recently homosexal marriage has been added to this list.
Being a homosexual may or may not (as I feel) be a choice, but choosing if and who to marry is. I think the equal protection clause would be a stretch here.
I think arguing for its acceptance on the merits of it is more persuasive, while claiming civil rights or equal protection gets you embroiled in issues which cloud the underlying reasons.
You can rationalize away Kerry's repeated claims of an image SEARED into him as being mistaken recollections. We can disagree on that, but if we can't trust what is SEARED in him to be actually true and may just be a mistake, how can we take his word on ANYTHING, let alone anything from 15 years ago or 30? And by discounting his Khmer Rouge claims by not addressing them you further show your bias. So does his word about the Rassman story have any merit?
Avoids answering the question? Check.
What question have I avoided? Where?
Holds the Democrat up to the highest of standards while ignoring the GOP's shenanigans? Check.
Okay can you criticize Kerry without criticizing a Repbulican? Yes. Do I have to criticize both at the same time? No. I am/was posting specifically about Kerry. And I don't think asking someone to not be a liar is the highest of standards.
Most Underwhelming Evidence Ever
Wow, I've never seen a more convincing denial in my life. We have the after action report, the actual document from Vietnam, which contradicts Kerry's (as you said above mistaken) memory of the incident. And you say it is both irrelevant and nitpicking. You may hold him to the lowest of standards.
Okay, now why is a doctor appearing in the SBVFT ads saying that he treated Kerry's wounds, when a different doctor's signature is on the records?
Wow, you get these tlaking poins from Al Franken or Terry MCauliffe? No one has ever denied he was Kerry's doctor. Everyone talks about the signature and assumes we will accept that and make the assumption he was not his doctor. That signature was by essentially a nurse. This is not uncommon in military hospitals.
SBVFT guys said that they were under fire as well
If Kerry submitted the AA reports, he could put anything he wanted in them. If he reported fire, then the commanding officers accepted that. The SBVT have said this all along.
when they've taken some $15,000 in GOP money
15K really? Wow, you have offically taken of the Most Underwhelming Evidence Ever crown. And if you look at their efforts, they haven't been involved in politics. What offices have they held? What camapigns have they run? These men have been apolitical since they got back. John O'Neil debated Kerry at Nixon's behest then went back to the private sector. That was a nice play on semantics, but the truth is there.
Any more?
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia, I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me." -John Kerry, March 1986, Senate Floor
Doug Brinkley's original text has him 50 miles from cambodia that day. And it devotes 100 pages to Vietnam and none of that deals with Cambodia. Nixon wasn't president at the time (as he is implying) and Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia didn't even ally himself with the Khmer Roughe till 1970. It is entirely possible his recollection was wrong about the time, place, people and president, and that this false image is seared in his mind, but I doubt that.
And since you are evidently a Republican
What makes me obviously a republican? My dislike of Kerry, well if there are only two options the Kerry Party or the Republican Party then I'm out of luck.
and don't match Navy records
Here is a good review of the Navy Doc that contradicts Kerry and agrees with the SBVT. The Docs are here
So when discussing John Kerry's record of deceit, your defense is BUsh was arrested for a DUI.
Can you please explain the relevance? When did I mention Bush? I've been ashamed of both the Mass. Senators for a long time. I didn't know Kerry lied about Cambodia tilll now, but then neither did Doug Brinkley.
I read and comprehended, all I said is he admitted to atrocities. By shifting the debate to the TANG crap, you have proven your side indefensible in this matter. The last defense of the damned: 'Okay, I did it, but what about this???'
He filed plenty of After Action reports, maybe he could file some reports of people around him committing atrocities. That would require courage he may not have had. He needn't burn villages with his Zippo, that was just out of line. YOu can forgive his actions if you like, all I was saying was that he DID ADMIT TO ATROCITIES. And that he is a proven repetitive liar.
unilaterally attacked a nation without UN approval
First, you can discount the coalition, but we all know unilateral is the wrong word. I'll give you 'small' coalition, 'weak' coalition or even without large support or backing, but unilateral is wrong on its face. And 1441 says "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations", and guess what, the violated this resolution. We can differ on 'serious consequences', but that seems to miss the point.
has stated the desire to do so again in Syria and Iran
In fact he has said he hopes Syria, Iran and N. Korea follow Libya's example and give up WMD programs peacefully, and that he has no intentions of military action against either nation.
See my other post, he clearly admitted atrocities on Meet The Press, he also did it later in that testimony as pointed a=out by DAldridge.
Also, the testimonies at the Winter Soldier meetings were invaded by liars, this is known and some even claim Kerry pressured them to lie, so he could turn around and quote them to Congress.
Do you really trust someone who forces others to lie so that he can scapegoat them when his testimony is refuted???
I'm not saying he did this, but without a proper investigation how do we know? Have you ever heard of Steve Pikin? We know he lied about the Kansa City meeting, so why not lie about other VVAW stuff?
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
-John Kerry, Meet The Press, April 18, 1971
That is the incriminating quote. IF you hadn't seen this yet, you just haven't been looking. Audio
Kerry lied about Cambodia, this i sknown fact. He lied on the floor of Congress, he lied in his biography by Brinkley.
Here is the Wikipedia entry for Winter Soldier meetings where Kerry heard that te4stimony he used in front of congress. As you can see there were definitely plenty of people lying about Vietnam, as in they weren't there, or they weren't where they said they were, wrong branch of service and what not. It behooved Kerry to do background checks before testifiying to congress. He failed to do that. In fact, Steve Pitkin accuses kerry of pressuring him to lie.
Kerry has pulled all of copies of his book The New Soldier. Is he ashamed of what he said back then?
John Kerry is a liar, denying that is fine, so long as you are willing to believe that hundreds of other people have been conspiring for 30+ years to make Kerry look like a liar, and some of those people are Doug Brinkley, a Congressional Stenographer and people he quoted for his testimony in 1971.
Can you please point out where the words "fair trial" appear in any founding document? Oh, you can't. Know why? Because it's not mentioned anywhere. Does that matter? Not a bit.
Al pointed out below, the basis of what we know of as a fair trial is all over the founding documents. The separation of Church and State in the form you describe is no where in there. The ONLY constituional restriction on Church and State is found in the 1st Amendment. You can't just decide it means more to suit your liking.
Well, I guess those few families that are affected can just move.
What do families with the only option is a failed public school? Should they just move? This has zero affect on the argument.
...a giant welfare program for private schools. Can you please explain why want to replace one central plan with another central plan?
No one is propping up private schools with vouchers, this is welfare like food stamps are grocery store welfare. It is not a central plan, this is keeping public schools open, but allowing children in failing districts to escape. This relieves the overcrowding pressure while increasing the per-pupil monies in the school. This should help the public system reform and improve so that they don't lose kids to private school.
And look at how fair and equal they are. Oh, but that's different, right?
No, all schools aren't equal, but trapping kids in the worst school shouldn't be the only option. If private schools are better than public, even if not as good as the best private school, the child is still served better by going there than to the public school. Once again, trapping students in failings schools is 'fair' but not right.
As to your final point that vouchers don't solve the ills creating poor students, is based on a premise I don't accept. By removing over-crowded, poorly run schools as a reason for poor students, you absolve the school system of any blame and therefore any need to change. Ladd bases her findings on her own studies of the New Zealand schools sytem and then looks back at the US data. She clearly states that this data is "preliminary" and not conclusive. Vouchers are not a cure all, they are merely a tool in an arsenal of reforms that when used properly can transform underperforming schools into successful ones.
Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.
Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion.
And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points.
Private schools have less accountability
Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools)
Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?
The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?)
The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.
Say DC has 10,000 students at 12k is $120,000,000
1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials.
As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.
Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.
Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion.
And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points.
Private schools have less accountability
Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools)
Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?
The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?)
The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.
Say DC has 10,000 students at 12K http://nationalreview.com/comment/lukas20031120085 8.asp/ is $120,000,000
1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials.
As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.
Please defend how school vouchers keep a population constantly stupid? We all agree that the current school system is woefully under-educating our children. There are three options to solve that: A)build a new public system, b)reform the old one, or c) seek assistance from the private sector. Apparently you and others who are adamantly opposed to school vouchers chose D: throw more money at it.
NCLB is Ted Kennedy sponsored reform of that system which has its flaws, but it does have some positive effects. School vouchers http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/09/01/dc.school. vouchers.ap/ are loved by the parents in poor districts, because witht hem their children have the option to escape the inefficaint poorly performing public schools. At the same time, the $/student average for the public schools goes up because the waiver only covers 7500 of the 13K per student spent.
Thoughts?
Give me a break, the fighting in Ireland (well the UK state of Norhtern Ireland, but why pick nits) is the remnant of the English invasion during Ireland's turmoil. Currently it gets dressed up as Protestant Vs. Catholics, but those lines are generally their because of the Celtic then Roman Catholic Irish natives were fighting against the Protestant English. England refuses to leave NI and allow it to join the rest of the island, and that is why you have the Irish fighting fot home rule.
They're just wrong, I took it the last year it was Pascal (my Junior year) and the first year it was C++ (my Senior). The Pascal/C++ switch was in the summer of 1998, so 6 years ago.
I took them both, which was ridiculous, considering the first class didn't count towards colleg eand the second didn't count towards HS. Even though the head of our math department was the AP CS teacher, and he petitioned the school to count them as separate courses, the administration said they ahd the same name, so they must be the same course!
I mainly got to do my own thing (since I was auditing it), and do a step beyond each assignment since I'd already figured out the algorithms and such. It really helped me get into complex inheritance and such.
On a side note, our class of about 15 had one kid get below a 4. We also did Knuth and other algorithm analysis on top the AP. I also took classes taught by and TA'ed for Astrachan at Duke. He gets derided for the Tapestry stuff, but he's devoted his life to making CS accessible to everyone, and he's a phenominal professor.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if there's someone out there who truly knows what is right for a young teenage girl, it's a young twenty something gun-toting christian conservative male. Riiiight.
Are you actually arguing that "If she doesn't want the consequences then she shouldn't be taking the risk." is not a good approach to behaviour? And how does this advice come from a twenty something, gun-toting christian conservative male?
Women don't just 'become' pregnant, (excluding rape) women willingly have sex, which can lead to pregnancy. If you aren't willing to deal with pregnancy, you shouldn't have sex. It is simple.
First off, you response was reasoned up until the end. I spit on you is the quickest way to end constructive debate, though I don't necessarily feel you care to have that, since you view Evangelical Christians as not worthy of your consideration. I am not an EC, though I am Christian and am offended by constant attacks on a religious group, regardless of whom they are. Isolating them based on their faith seems to be restricted in America to EC's, while it manifests itself as rabid Antisemitism in Europe and various clashes around the globe.
and are arguably, not harming anyone
There in lies the rub. People, both Christians and non-Christians can and do hold the belief that Abortion and Gay Marriage are wrong. The former since it is state sponsored murder to them, the latter because of the negative effects they believe it will have on society. A fringe may argue to outlaw homosexuality, but grouping those together with mainstream anti-gay marriage advocates is both disingenuous and wrong. Why do we outlaw incestual marriages or polygamous ones? Can those arguments plausibly apply to same sex marriages? That is the real debate.
while they aren't doing anything with their worthless opinions that affects you in any way.
This isn't true, so far as those who argue against 'moral' issues are concerned. Abortion is a question of state sponsored murder for many people, so saying it doesn't affect them is equivalent to saying we should allow murders to go free so long as they don't murder me. There are plenty of people opposed to Gay Marriage based not on religion, but on the belief, however well founded, that altering the historical role of marriage in society can be detrimental to the health and sustainability of society as a whole. That argument is generally the position held by supporters of civil unions and some of the more strict positions.
Also, legal institutionalizing of Gay Marriage(and possibly civil unions) is forcing that set of beliefs (that there is nothing different between same and mixed sexed couples) 'down their throats' as you put it. You may take this as fact, but it is a matter of opinion to some if not most people.
I do hope you see the hypocrisy in saying Group A shouldn't push their beliefs, while Group B should because their beliefs a) are better, b) are right or c) are mine.
You are violating other people rights by denying them life. No one has ever argued you have the right to do that. However using morals, gleanerd from the Bible or from your parents or wherever, to argue for or against laws is a long rooted American tradition. I've posted about the jurisprudence regarding Gay Marriage elsewhere, as it is a complicated legal issue. If however you reject the application of morals into law, whomever's morals they are, then I assume you argue for extreme libertarianism and a laisez-faire government which only protects life and property, as everything else is basically a moral call.
I object to singling out one sect of people and degrading and debasing them based on their belief system, while holding up people with similar beliefs as intelligent and reasonable.
And by asserting that a form of christianity doesn't have a place in the world anymore, are there more belief sets we can eliminate? How about socialism? What if your belief system was suddenly determined to not have a place in this world? Who is the arbiter of that?
Wooo, felt good to get that out didn't it? Call fundamentalist religious people dumb for having faith in something greater than man, and that makes you smart? I'll say this to you, as I say to a lot of people who belittle the religious/moral, PROVE THEM WRONG! Until you can definitively prove them wrong on God or their faith, your opinion on the matter isn't worth it's wait in salt.
There are really two arguments here.
1) Does the government, in this case state government, have the jurisdiction to sanction marriage?
2) If so, what limits should be placed on those santionings
If you don't affirm #1, #2 is pointless.
If you do affirm #1, then #2 becomes extremely important. Currently, gays or straights don't have different laws goverening who they can marry. While it's true I can't marry another man, that gets dismissed because I don't want to.
We currently have ceded government the power sanction marriage, and with that not sanction and in some cases make illegal, marriages between two consenting adults it deems unfit. These include siblings and polygamy historically. Recently homosexal marriage has been added to this list.
Being a homosexual may or may not (as I feel) be a choice, but choosing if and who to marry is. I think the equal protection clause would be a stretch here.
I think arguing for its acceptance on the merits of it is more persuasive, while claiming civil rights or equal protection gets you embroiled in issues which cloud the underlying reasons.
That is my 2 cents
You can rationalize away Kerry's repeated claims of an image SEARED into him as being mistaken recollections. We can disagree on that, but if we can't trust what is SEARED in him to be actually true and may just be a mistake, how can we take his word on ANYTHING, let alone anything from 15 years ago or 30? And by discounting his Khmer Rouge claims by not addressing them you further show your bias. So does his word about the Rassman story have any merit?
Avoids answering the question? Check.
What question have I avoided? Where?
Holds the Democrat up to the highest of standards while ignoring the GOP's shenanigans? Check.
Okay can you criticize Kerry without criticizing a Repbulican? Yes. Do I have to criticize both at the same time? No. I am/was posting specifically about Kerry. And I don't think asking someone to not be a liar is the highest of standards.
Most Underwhelming Evidence Ever
Wow, I've never seen a more convincing denial in my life. We have the after action report, the actual document from Vietnam, which contradicts Kerry's (as you said above mistaken) memory of the incident. And you say it is both irrelevant and nitpicking. You may hold him to the lowest of standards.
Okay, now why is a doctor appearing in the SBVFT ads saying that he treated Kerry's wounds, when a different doctor's signature is on the records?
Wow, you get these tlaking poins from Al Franken or Terry MCauliffe? No one has ever denied he was Kerry's doctor. Everyone talks about the signature and assumes we will accept that and make the assumption he was not his doctor. That signature was by essentially a nurse. This is not uncommon in military hospitals.
SBVFT guys said that they were under fire as well
If Kerry submitted the AA reports, he could put anything he wanted in them. If he reported fire, then the commanding officers accepted that. The SBVT have said this all along.
when they've taken some $15,000 in GOP money
15K really? Wow, you have offically taken of the Most Underwhelming Evidence Ever crown. And if you look at their efforts, they haven't been involved in politics. What offices have they held? What camapigns have they run? These men have been apolitical since they got back. John O'Neil debated Kerry at Nixon's behest then went back to the private sector. That was a nice play on semantics, but the truth is there. Any more?
"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia, I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."
-John Kerry, March 1986, Senate Floor
Doug Brinkley's original text has him 50 miles from cambodia that day. And it devotes 100 pages to Vietnam and none of that deals with Cambodia. Nixon wasn't president at the time (as he is implying) and Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia didn't even ally himself with the Khmer Roughe till 1970. It is entirely possible his recollection was wrong about the time, place, people and president, and that this false image is seared in his mind, but I doubt that.
And since you are evidently a Republican
What makes me obviously a republican? My dislike of Kerry, well if there are only two options the Kerry Party or the Republican Party then I'm out of luck.
and don't match Navy records
Here is a good review of the Navy Doc that contradicts Kerry and agrees with the SBVT. The Docs are here
Any more?
So when discussing John Kerry's record of deceit, your defense is BUsh was arrested for a DUI.
Can you please explain the relevance? When did I mention Bush? I've been ashamed of both the Mass. Senators for a long time. I didn't know Kerry lied about Cambodia tilll now, but then neither did Doug Brinkley.
I read and comprehended, all I said is he admitted to atrocities. By shifting the debate to the TANG crap, you have proven your side indefensible in this matter. The last defense of the damned: 'Okay, I did it, but what about this???'
He filed plenty of After Action reports, maybe he could file some reports of people around him committing atrocities. That would require courage he may not have had. He needn't burn villages with his Zippo, that was just out of line. YOu can forgive his actions if you like, all I was saying was that he DID ADMIT TO ATROCITIES. And that he is a proven repetitive liar.
unilaterally attacked a nation without UN approval
First, you can discount the coalition, but we all know unilateral is the wrong word. I'll give you 'small' coalition, 'weak' coalition or even without large support or backing, but unilateral is wrong on its face. And 1441 says "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations", and guess what, the violated this resolution. We can differ on 'serious consequences', but that seems to miss the point.
has stated the desire to do so again in Syria and Iran
In fact he has said he hopes Syria, Iran and N. Korea follow Libya's example and give up WMD programs peacefully, and that he has no intentions of military action against either nation.
Karma? Nothing like unsubstantiated vitriol to get +1 Karma. 'Splain please....
See my other post, he clearly admitted atrocities on Meet The Press, he also did it later in that testimony as pointed a=out by DAldridge.
Also, the testimonies at the Winter Soldier meetings were invaded by liars, this is known and some even claim Kerry pressured them to lie, so he could turn around and quote them to Congress.
Do you really trust someone who forces others to lie so that he can scapegoat them when his testimony is refuted???
I'm not saying he did this, but without a proper investigation how do we know? Have you ever heard of Steve Pikin? We know he lied about the Kansa City meeting, so why not lie about other VVAW stuff?
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
-John Kerry, Meet The Press, April 18, 1971
That is the incriminating quote. IF you hadn't seen this yet, you just haven't been looking. Audio
Kerry lied about Cambodia, this i sknown fact. He lied on the floor of Congress, he lied in his biography by Brinkley.
Here is the Wikipedia entry for Winter Soldier meetings where Kerry heard that te4stimony he used in front of congress. As you can see there were definitely plenty of people lying about Vietnam, as in they weren't there, or they weren't where they said they were, wrong branch of service and what not. It behooved Kerry to do background checks before testifiying to congress. He failed to do that. In fact, Steve Pitkin accuses kerry of pressuring him to lie.
Kerry has pulled all of copies of his book The New Soldier. Is he ashamed of what he said back then?
John Kerry is a liar, denying that is fine, so long as you are willing to believe that hundreds of other people have been conspiring for 30+ years to make Kerry look like a liar, and some of those people are Doug Brinkley, a Congressional Stenographer and people he quoted for his testimony in 1971.
Can you please point out where the words "fair trial" appear in any founding document? Oh, you can't. Know why? Because it's not mentioned anywhere. Does that matter? Not a bit.
...a giant welfare program for private schools. Can you please explain why want to replace one central plan with another central plan?
Al pointed out below, the basis of what we know of as a fair trial is all over the founding documents. The separation of Church and State in the form you describe is no where in there. The ONLY constituional restriction on Church and State is found in the 1st Amendment. You can't just decide it means more to suit your liking.
Well, I guess those few families that are affected can just move.
What do families with the only option is a failed public school? Should they just move? This has zero affect on the argument.
No one is propping up private schools with vouchers, this is welfare like food stamps are grocery store welfare. It is not a central plan, this is keeping public schools open, but allowing children in failing districts to escape. This relieves the overcrowding pressure while increasing the per-pupil monies in the school. This should help the public system reform and improve so that they don't lose kids to private school.
And look at how fair and equal they are. Oh, but that's different, right?
No, all schools aren't equal, but trapping kids in the worst school shouldn't be the only option. If private schools are better than public, even if not as good as the best private school, the child is still served better by going there than to the public school. Once again, trapping students in failings schools is 'fair' but not right.
As to your final point that vouchers don't solve the ills creating poor students, is based on a premise I don't accept. By removing over-crowded, poorly run schools as a reason for poor students, you absolve the school system of any blame and therefore any need to change. Ladd bases her findings on her own studies of the New Zealand schools sytem and then looks back at the US data. She clearly states that this data is "preliminary" and not conclusive. Vouchers are not a cure all, they are merely a tool in an arsenal of reforms that when used properly can transform underperforming schools into successful ones.
For clarity:
Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.
Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion.
And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points.
Private schools have less accountability
Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools)
Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?
The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?)
The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.
Say DC has 10,000 students at 12k is $120,000,000 1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials.
As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.
Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state. Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion. And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points. Private schools have less accountability Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers. Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools) Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school? The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?) The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math. Say DC has 10,000 students at 12K http://nationalreview.com/comment/lukas20031120085 8.asp/ is $120,000,000
1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials.
As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.
Please defend how school vouchers keep a population constantly stupid? We all agree that the current school system is woefully under-educating our children. There are three options to solve that: A)build a new public system, b)reform the old one, or c) seek assistance from the private sector. Apparently you and others who are adamantly opposed to school vouchers chose D: throw more money at it. NCLB is Ted Kennedy sponsored reform of that system which has its flaws, but it does have some positive effects. School vouchers http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/09/01/dc.school. vouchers.ap/ are loved by the parents in poor districts, because witht hem their children have the option to escape the inefficaint poorly performing public schools. At the same time, the $/student average for the public schools goes up because the waiver only covers 7500 of the 13K per student spent.
Thoughts?
Give me a break, the fighting in Ireland (well the UK state of Norhtern Ireland, but why pick nits) is the remnant of the English invasion during Ireland's turmoil. Currently it gets dressed up as Protestant Vs. Catholics, but those lines are generally their because of the Celtic then Roman Catholic Irish natives were fighting against the Protestant English. England refuses to leave NI and allow it to join the rest of the island, and that is why you have the Irish fighting fot home rule.
They're just wrong, I took it the last year it was Pascal (my Junior year) and the first year it was C++ (my Senior). The Pascal/C++ switch was in the summer of 1998, so 6 years ago. I took them both, which was ridiculous, considering the first class didn't count towards colleg eand the second didn't count towards HS. Even though the head of our math department was the AP CS teacher, and he petitioned the school to count them as separate courses, the administration said they ahd the same name, so they must be the same course! I mainly got to do my own thing (since I was auditing it), and do a step beyond each assignment since I'd already figured out the algorithms and such. It really helped me get into complex inheritance and such. On a side note, our class of about 15 had one kid get below a 4. We also did Knuth and other algorithm analysis on top the AP. I also took classes taught by and TA'ed for Astrachan at Duke. He gets derided for the Tapestry stuff, but he's devoted his life to making CS accessible to everyone, and he's a phenominal professor.