Still Hating America. - Page 35

Sidd Finch · 02-08-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The battle with the CTA has been going on since I got involved with California politics ten years ago. Its all kind of a blurr in my mind. As far as I am concerned, the remedies that most people agree on are there, it is just getting them past the CTA road block that is the issue.

My memory on the Exit exam is 2001 but some school districts didn't implement it until last May. The CTA has fought it in court cases and in any other way they can. The Tenure battle has also being going on for at least ten years. Wilson tried to change it, then the Governator, when he failed he put it up in a proposition and it failed. In addition, the social promotion battle has been going on for a while to.

The exit exam has been so successful I hope that it will lead to a wave that will bring in annual testing. I think that is what O'Connel wants and slowly every year more Democrats have been coming around.

Again, you keep talking about this test like it was something instituted by Republicans, and Democrats have come along only as they could gradually free themselves from the yoke of their CTA masters.

And, again, this is wrong.

O'Connell, a Democrat, wrote the bill that instituted the exit exam.

Gray Davis, a Democrat, made passing the bill a centerpiece of his work as governor.

Republicans at one point threatened to derail the bill, possibly because they believed it wasn't tough enough, but ultimately they did not have the votes for it.

I have been unable to find a vote count, but obviously the bill would not have passed without at least some Democratic support -- and I'm guessing that it was pretty strong Democratic support. I don't know if Repubs voted for or against, generally.

The CTA was mightily opposed, yet somehow the Democratic Party managed to slip from their ironclad grasp.

All of this happened in 1999. The law was then stuck in the courts as a result of a challenge by Public Advocates, which appears to be based on an alleged failure to consider sufficient alternative tests.

Sidd Finch · 02-08-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
any paper that encourages this...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Engage Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, members of the UN Security Council, and potential donors in a stabilization plan for Iraq."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...is inherently and fatally flawed. That beign said, the guy says some interesting things.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to try diplomacy with people who don't already agree with us, like Iran and Syria.

And the UN Security Council -- give me a break! Those people refused to believe that Iraq had WMDs!

And who needs potential donors? We can just keep borrowing money. We never need to pay it back.

Hank Chinaski · 02-08-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And the UN Security Council -- give me a break! Those people refused to believe that Iraq had WMDs!

not to be a timmy, but they did believe it. they also believe Iran is moving towards having nukes.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-08-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, we wouldn't want to try diplomacy with people who don't already agree with us, like Iran and Syria.

I read this morning that Israel doesn't want to do anything to undermine Assad's control in Syria, since they fear the kind of regime that would come next much more. Of course, they actually have to live in the neighborhood. The 101st Fighting Keyboardists just like to sound tough because it gives them something to do.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-08-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they also believe Iran is moving towards having nukes.

If the Iranian people really want to develop nukes, in the long run how do we stop them? You can see why they'd want them, not least because we've invaded two of their neighbors recently.

sebastian_dangerfield · 02-08-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the Iranian people really want to develop nukes, in the long run how do we stop them?

WE don't; Israel does.

Penske_Account · 02-08-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I read this morning that Israel doesn't want to do anything to undermine Assad's control in Syria, since they fear the kind of regime that would come next much more. Of course, they actually have to live in the neighborhood. The 101st Fighting Keyboardists just like to sound tough because it gives them something to do.

Where did you read this, Kos or the DU?

Penske_Account · 02-08-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, we wouldn't want to try diplomacy with people who don't already agree with us, like Iran and Syria.

There has been diplomacy tried for almost 30 years. These terrorist nations don't react to diplomacy, they manipulate it. If the US had used diplomacy like the kind your Ds love, Hitler's final solution would have been realised. Of course,. the Ds policy in the ME may yet do that for him.

Adder · 02-08-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
There has been diplomacy tried for almost 30 years. These terrorist nations don't react to diplomacy, they manipulate it. If the US had used diplomacy like the kind your Ds love, Hitler's final solution would have been realised. Of course,. the Ds policy in the ME may yet do that for him.

GHWB and James Baker are Ds now?

Penske_Account · 02-08-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
WE don't; Israel does.

thank G-d. If only America had the balls of that dude from the FB.......but the eunuchs in the D party preclude that.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-08-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Where did you read this, Kos or the DU?

I thought it was that bastion of anti-Israel sentiment, The New Republic, but I'm not sure.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
WE don't; Israel does.

How?

SlaveNoMore · 02-08-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Sidd Finch
Yeah, we wouldn't want to try diplomacy with people who don't already agree with us, like Iran and Syria.

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.

I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."

- Neville Chamberlain

SlaveNoMore · 02-08-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
How?

Poisoning their top nuke scientist was a start.

Secret_Agent_Man · 02-08-2007, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, we wouldn't want to try diplomacy with people who don't already agree with us, like Iran and Syria.

* * *

And who needs potential donors? We can just keep borrowing money. We never need to pay it back.

My thought on that is that Iran and Syria are already involved and acting in Iraq (mostly under the table). We haven't been able to stop them and won't be able to do so in the future. Simple fact.

So, lets bring them to the table and get them involved to some extent publicly with others in the region and internationally to try to compel some useful/responsible behavior.

Not that Iran can afford to donate much cash, since the Saudis have depressed the price of oil to screw Iran.

S_A_M