Re: The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

[Keats]

"still me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:52:36 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> If there is a "national emergency" created from the blow-back of
>>> attacking
>>> Iran, will there be an election in 2008?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>Well that could be upsetting to some people who had their hearts set on
>>voting. How long do you think Bush and Cheney would have to stay in
>>office
>>to take care of this "national emergency"?
>
> They floated that Constitutional horror last time around. It's
> incredible that anyone can support them at this point.


Karl Rove resigned today. So you must have already experienced great
changes for the better in your world. The ship of state is moving your way
now. So stop the whining, OK?

Keats

 

[Bill Sornson]

still clueless wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:53:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote (about WHAT???):


>> As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you
>> call it falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades --
>> leading to dependent places like New Orleans and impoverished inner
>> cities. They are virtually ALL run by Democrats, and have been for
>> generations.

> Backwards? Why, because it doesn't agree with your ideological
> infatuation and you refuse to take an objective look at the issue?

That why you DELETED what you wrote?!? LOL

> First, I think of the common man as a Joe Walsh's Ordinary Average
> Guy. You're referencing the low income urban guy. The Dem's get them
> because they sponsor all sorts of programs for them. The Dem's
> actually care - the definition of bleeding heart.

********. The Dems keep power ($) by leeping people down (dependent). Get
a clue.

> The Republicans play it another way, throwing little tidbits and
> rhetoric to the Ordinary Average Guy while reaping huge benefits for
> the super rich. The Republicans play it much better.

Delusional.

>> How well are they working?

> Has nothing to do with this thread.

Not the way YOU quote! LOL (Hint: this went with the paragraph about
cities way above. HTH.)

>> When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
>> government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
>> dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
>> right...but not in the way you think.

> "I won't leave my home unless forced to" is NOT a party specific
> concept.

But...but...it was all GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT! Get a clue. (Also ask Mayor
"This Will Be A Chocolate City" why the hell hundreds of N.O. school buses
were left on a lot instead of getting people the hell out of harm's way.)

> You really come across as a social class bigot.

Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New Orleans.
Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based on personal
responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one problem with that: Dems
will not keep getting elected if this occurs.

Get a clue.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> still me wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay
>>> home at election time.
>> But they're easily fooled. As soon as the Rep's start their rhetoric
>> machine, the common man starts sucking it up. I give credit to the
>> Republicans for pushing this strategy over decades - the real rich get
>> richer and richer, the middle man gets a farthing. But, the people
>> keep sucking it up.
>
> As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you call it
> falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades -- leading to dependent
> places like New Orleans and impoverished inner cities. They are virtually
> ALL run by Democrats, and have been for generations.
>
> How well are they working?

Ever hear of "white flight", "redlining" and job discrimination? The
concentration of poor blacks in the inner cities is a creation of
privileged whites.

>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
>>> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are
>>> doing better. Even though the corporate media is dominated by
>>> pundits that bleat the regressive economic case, people will still
>>> look at their own lives and see that things are not going right for
>>> them.
>> I don't think "the people" are all that sharp. They typically ignore
>> the facts (since they never read and they live on sound bites) and
>> listen to the noise from the pols. At certain times they reach
>> overload and react, but I don't know if we've reached that point.
>
> When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
> government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
> dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
> right...but not in the way you think.

What about when the local government uses weapons to keep black people
from crossing a bridge to get away from the natural disaster?

Hint: A lot of these people did not have private motor vehicles to leave in.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> still clueless wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:53:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote (about WHAT???):
>
>
>>> As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you
>>> call it falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades --
>>> leading to dependent places like New Orleans and impoverished inner
>>> cities. They are virtually ALL run by Democrats, and have been for
>>> generations.
>
>> Backwards? Why, because it doesn't agree with your ideological
>> infatuation and you refuse to take an objective look at the issue?
>
> That why you DELETED what you wrote?!? LOL
>
>> First, I think of the common man as a Joe Walsh's Ordinary Average
>> Guy. You're referencing the low income urban guy. The Dem's get them
>> because they sponsor all sorts of programs for them. The Dem's
>> actually care - the definition of bleeding heart.
>
> ********. The Dems keep power ($) by leeping people down (dependent). Get
> a clue.
>
>> The Republicans play it another way, throwing little tidbits and
>> rhetoric to the Ordinary Average Guy while reaping huge benefits for
>> the super rich. The Republicans play it much better.
>
> Delusional.
>
>>> How well are they working?
>
>> Has nothing to do with this thread.
>
> Not the way YOU quote! LOL (Hint: this went with the paragraph about
> cities way above. HTH.)
>
>>> When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
>>> government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
>>> dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
>>> right...but not in the way you think.
>
>> "I won't leave my home unless forced to" is NOT a party specific
>> concept.
>
> But...but...it was all GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT! Get a clue. (Also ask Mayor
> "This Will Be A Chocolate City" why the hell hundreds of N.O. school buses
> were left on a lot instead of getting people the hell out of harm's way.)
>
>> You really come across as a social class bigot.
>
> Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New Orleans.
> Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based on personal
> responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one problem with that: Dems
> will not keep getting elected if this occurs.
>
> Get a clue.

Good advice there. The opportunity for a poor black child is NOT the
same as that of an upper class white child. Anyone that thinks so is
truly clueless.

The opportunity for "mut people" is not much better, with decreasing
support for decent public schools, early childhood education,
development and health care, decreasing wages and increasing college
tuition.

--
Tom "mut person" Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

(not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "still me" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>>> inasmuch
>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>> I actually
>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>>> short in
>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>>> the last
>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>> she will
>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>> leftish
>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>> mean the
>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>> cows, not
>>>> Chicago.
>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>>> now there
>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>>> the
>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>>> liberals.
>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have started
>> to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves economically by
>> voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip services to
>> their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at election time.
>>
>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>> see that things are not going right for them.
>>
>> --
>
>
> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees the
> rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance the
> progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:
>
> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
> five main findings:

That is the PAST. I was referring to the FUTURE. If Hurricane Katrina
had happened a year earlier, we would likely have President Kerry,
despite the voting irregularities of the 2004 election.

> > • White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the electorate),
> delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic tipping point — the
> income level at which whites were more likely to vote Republican than
> Democrat — was $23,700, not far above the poverty level. Moreover, white
> middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the same towering
> majorities to Republicans.

The "southern strategy" of covert racism was still working then.

> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
> Democrats, regardless of income level.

See above.

> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
> Party.
> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
> predicts voting behavior.

So the ploy of "lower taxes" fooled a lot of people, who were mislead by
the corporate media into ignoring the greater cuts in government
provided benefits (of all types, including those that mostly benefit the
middle class).

> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a dramatic
> increase in Republican support."
> http://www.third-way.com/
>
> Keats
>
> P.S. On Topic portion of post. President Bush said he would vacation in
> France if he could ride his Mountain Bike there.

Pity the French. I can't understand why anyone would want to Bush to
visit, considering that it requires "locking down" huge areas.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

> What about when the local government uses weapons to keep black people
> from crossing a bridge to get away from the natural disaster?

Key word: LOCAL government. (The same one that had many hundreds of buses
that never got used.)

> Hint: A lot of these people did not have private motor vehicles to
> leave in.

There were days' warnings, if only Nagin had acted.

The worse thing that happened was that it APPEARED to not be so bad at
first. Everyone let down their guard, thinking they had dodged a bullet.
(Hell, Bourbon Street was biz as usual the day after.) THEN the levees gave
way and the waters rose.

The whole thing was a cluster-quack.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "still me" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>>> inasmuch
>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>> I actually
>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>>> short in
>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>>> the last
>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>> she will
>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>> leftish
>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>> mean the
>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>> cows, not
>>>> Chicago.
>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>>> now there
>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>>> the
>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>>> liberals.
>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have started
>> to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves economically by
>> voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip services to
>> their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at election time.
>>
>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>> see that things are not going right for them.
>
> Well, I have not had to step over any dead bodies lying in the streets
> lately, so that is a good sign. I wonder why it is that all the rest of the
> world wants to come to America if the working poor are so god damn poor!

The US (and to lesser but still significant extent, Europe) has used its
military and economic power to increase poverty in countries primarily
inhabited by darker skinned people.

Do you notice many Western Europeans wanting to come to the US, besides
the odd laissez-faire capitalist? Despite a lower per capita GNP, the
lower and middle classes are much better off.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[still me]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:52:40 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high
>school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
>Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum
>wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
>from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country
>there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
>program available to increase your skills.

>Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
>made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
>victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so they
>can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or just
>feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
>helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
>most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
>poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
>poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
>to keep you in place.

Nice theory, but it doesn't wash. I'm no fan of endless, wasteful
social programs, but the very people promoting the financial
assistance programs you cite are the Democrats - who you accuse of
having some farfetched conspiracy to keep people in poverty.

Logic just defeated you.

 

[still me]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:33:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> You really come across as a social class bigot.
>
>Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New Orleans.
>Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based on personal
>responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one problem with that: Dems
>will not keep getting elected if this occurs.
>
>Get a clue.

I have a clue. Your first problem is that you assume anyone who
opposes that a-hole of a President and his crony neo-con fascists who
are selling us down a river is a Democrat. Your second problem is that
you are the definition of the brainwashed masses that the neo's are
pulling along like lemmings.

I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
continuing.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

still me? wrote:
> ...
> I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
> preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
> continuing.

butbutbut, the rest of us are curious!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill Sornson]

still me wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:33:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> You really come across as a social class bigot.
>>
>> Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New
>> Orleans. Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based
>> on personal responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one
>> problem with that: Dems will not keep getting elected if this
>> occurs.
>>
>> Get a clue.
>
> I have a clue. Your first problem is that you assume anyone who
> opposes that a-hole of a President and his crony neo-con fascists who
> are selling us down a river is a Democrat. Your second problem is that
> you are the definition of the brainwashed masses that the neo's are
> pulling along like lemmings.
>
> I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
> preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
> continuing.

Nonsequitur much? LOL

Bill "oh, and Flogger wants to know who you really are" S.

 

[Keats]

"still me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:52:40 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from
>>high
>>school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
>>Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the
>>minimum
>>wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
>>from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our
>>country
>>there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
>>program available to increase your skills.
>
>>Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
>>made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
>>victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so
>>they
>>can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or
>>just
>>feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
>>helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
>>most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
>>poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
>>poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
>>to keep you in place.
>
> Nice theory, but it doesn't wash. I'm no fan of endless, wasteful
> social programs, but the very people promoting the financial
> assistance programs you cite are the Democrats - who you accuse of
> having some farfetched conspiracy to keep people in poverty.
>
> Logic just defeated you.

Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
you - never uttering a positive word.

As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal. Nothing
too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and I'll
show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.

Keats

 

[still me]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:51:41 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
>administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
>you - never uttering a positive word.

Don't assume people are Democrats just because they can objectively
recognize that Bush is a neo fascist, neo con moron puppet without a
clue who has caused great harm to the USA that will take decades to
repair.

I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
standardized testing.

>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal. Nothing
>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and I'll
>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.

You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
(paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
long poverty.

 

[Keats]

"still me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:51:41 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
>>administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
>>you - never uttering a positive word.
>
> Don't assume people are Democrats just because they can objectively
> recognize that Bush is a neo fascist, neo con moron puppet without a
> clue who has caused great harm to the USA that will take decades to
> repair.
>
> I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
> his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
> that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
> ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
> standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
> urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
> handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
> standardized testing.


Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?



>>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
>>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
>>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
>>Nothing
>>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
>>I'll
>>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
>>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.


>
> You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
> (paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
> long poverty.
>

I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.

 

[still me]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:56 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
>> his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
>> that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
>> ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
>> standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
>> urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
>> handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
>> standardized testing.
>
>
>Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?

The only logical answer to that question is "because you don't have a
clue".

FWIW, I'm none too fond of unions in general or the teachers union in
particular. More importantly, it's obvious that you haven't seen the
hands-on effect of what happens when the state starts dictating
universal tests. It leads directly to state dictated curriculum, a
horrible idea. It ruins good schools that were doing their job, and it
doesn't make any difference in the schools that weren't doing their
job.

>>>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
>>>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
>>>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
>>>Nothing
>>>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
>>>I'll
>>>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
>>>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.
>
>
>>
>> You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
>> (paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
>> long poverty.
>>
>
>I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
>for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
>other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.

Your quote doesn't apply that phrase to "kids".

 

[Keats]

"still me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:56 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
>>> his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
>>> that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
>>> ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
>>> standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
>>> urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
>>> handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
>>> standardized testing.
>>
>>
>>Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?
>
> The only logical answer to that question is "because you don't have a
> clue".


The only clues I have are the ones you supply. And as far as logic goes I'm
not so sure you've got a clue.



>
> FWIW, I'm none too fond of unions in general or the teachers union in
> particular. More importantly, it's obvious that you haven't seen the
> hands-on effect of what happens when the state starts dictating
> universal tests. It leads directly to state dictated curriculum, a
> horrible idea. It ruins good schools that were doing their job, and it
> doesn't make any difference in the schools that weren't doing their
> job.
>
>>>>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket
>>>>science.
>>>>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and
>>>>stay
>>>>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
>>>>Nothing
>>>>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
>>>>I'll
>>>>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this
>>>>language
>>>>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
>>> (paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
>>> long poverty.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
>>for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
>>other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.
>
> Your quote doesn't apply that phrase to "kids".

Ok, so the quote was all inclusive and did include kids, young people,
middle aged people, older people, seniors, black people, white people,
yellow people, red people, brown people, pink people, fit people, unfit
people, average people, below average people, above average
people.............I could go on and on with this but maybe, just maybe
you've managed to get the idea.

So how does that change anything?

Keats (as Dr. Phil might say - I'm stupefied by this guest)

 

[still me]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:47:56 -0500, "Keats" <[email protected]> wrote:


>> The only logical answer to that question is "because you don't have a
>> clue".
>
>
>The only clues I have are the ones you supply. And as far as logic goes I'm
>not so sure you've got a clue.

Nice attempt to dodge your erroneous assumption based on your
ideological bias.

>>
>> Your quote doesn't apply that phrase to "kids".
>
>Ok, so the quote was all inclusive and did include kids, young people,
>middle aged people, older people, seniors, black people, white people,
>yellow people, red people, brown people, pink people, fit people, unfit
>people, average people, below average people, above average
>people.............I could go on and on with this but maybe, just maybe
>you've managed to get the idea.
>
>So how does that change anything?

Because taking a minimum wage job is a loser tactic guaranteed to
preserve your poverty, not change it.