Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Joe Sixpack reads the NYPost. Folks from the UES side read the Grey Lady.

Nice try.

Do you think that the median voter (hi Spanky!) should vote GOP because the Dow hit 12,000?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
This remark should bury him as a candidate, which is good. Sure, I voted for him -- given the alternative -- but I didn't much like him, ever since he flubbed the "body armor" question (a softball question if ever there was one).

"I didn't apologize. Right before I did."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
We know. I, for one, am waiting to see how your predictions of 25-30 Dem Senate seats plays out. Crossed fingers, Hank!

Do you recognize the difference between hyperbole and when I am actually explaning stuff?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Do you think that the median voter (hi Spanky!) should vote GOP because the Dow hit 12,000?

Go into your local Best Buy and look around at all the people buying $349 Ipods, XBox 360s and $3,000 HD television sets.

These people aren't all stockbrokers.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
on Sept 12. 2001 if someone had said we can get you to 11/1/06 with 2 dead from Islamic terrorism in the US, you wouldn't have signed on?

And the 2 dead were Israeli, and really were part of that end of the fight- just in the US.

And anthrax was an internal guy, not Islamic, or we would have seen more of it.

Let me get this straight:

-- Americans killed by terrorists before September 12, 2001, don't count.

-- Americans killed by terrorists after September 12, 2001, don't count, if they are killed in Iraq. Especially if they are soldiers (because, you know -- Rs really care about the troops... they just don't count.)

-- non-American's killed in America by terrorists after September 12, 2001 don't count

-- when passengers see another passenger about to blow up a plane by lighting a shoe bomb, and they stop him, that counts as a Republican accomplishment. Besides, the plane was over the Atlantic so if it had blown up, that wouldn't count.

-- Americans killed by terrorists in America after September 12, 2001, don't count if Hank believes that they are not "Islamists." Hank's reason for that belief is that, had they been "Islamists," they would have continued killing Americans in America, despite the fact that Hank also believes that Bush has effectively stopped all "Islamist" terrorist attacks on Americans in America. (Those terrorists couldn't have been Islamists, therefore Bush has a perfect record, because Islamists would have continued killing people, notwithstanding Bush's perfect record. Hank logic.)


Right?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Was this before or after Winnie had all those political rivals set on fire?

You judge Mandela by the acts of his ex-wife?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Go into your local Best Buy and look around at all the people buying $349 Ipods, XBox 360s and $3,000 HD television sets.

These people aren't all stockbrokers.

You can lease a Range Rover Sport for $499 mo according to the Grey Lady.

Everybody's gotta have everything, and when they can't get it, they scream for the govt to fix things so they can, or make it so others' can't. That's what sits at the heart of most of the Philly Democrats I know - a beliefe everyone should get equal "stuff."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let me get this straight:

-- Americans killed by terrorists before September 12, 2001, don't count.

-- Americans killed by terrorists after September 12, 2001, don't count, if they are killed in Iraq. Especially if they are soldiers (because, you know -- Rs really care about the troops... they just don't count.)

-- non-American's killed in America by terrorists after September 12, 2001 don't count

-- when passengers see another passenger about to blow up a plane by lighting a shoe bomb, and they stop him, that counts as a Republican accomplishment. Besides, the plane was over the Atlantic so if it had blown up, that wouldn't count.

-- Americans killed by terrorists in America after September 12, 2001, don't count if Hank believes that they are not "Islamists." Hank's reason for that belief is that, had they been "Islamists," they would have continued killing Americans in America, despite the fact that Hank also believes that Bush has effectively stopped all "Islamist" terrorist attacks on Americans in America. (Those terrorists couldn't have been Islamists, therefore Bush has a perfect record, because Islamists would have continued killing people, notwithstanding Bush's perfect record. Hank logic.)


Right?

it's people who think and vote like you that let 20000 homicide bombers be trained in Afghanistan. 9/11 was planned and set up under clinton's watch. It is idiotic for you to claim anything else.

As to the 2 people killed here, I did accept that, and asked if that wasn't a "good deal" given what we all feared on Sept 12. I think that was clear. Do you have associates read the other side's briefs and explain to you what is being argued? I mean, you don't rely on your reading comprehension when client interests are at stake, do you?

Soldiers dying is a tragic thing, but it is why we have a military- so they can kill and be killed- somewhere other than here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let me get this straight:

-- Americans killed by terrorists before September 12, 2001, don't count.

-- Americans killed by terrorists after September 12, 2001, don't count, if they are killed in Iraq. Especially if they are soldiers (because, you know -- Rs really care about the troops... they just don't count.)

-- non-American's killed in America by terrorists after September 12, 2001 don't count

-- when passengers see another passenger about to blow up a plane by lighting a shoe bomb, and they stop him, that counts as a Republican accomplishment. Besides, the plane was over the Atlantic so if it had blown up, that wouldn't count.

-- Americans killed by terrorists in America after September 12, 2001, don't count if Hank believes that they are not "Islamists." Hank's reason for that belief is that, had they been "Islamists," they would have continued killing Americans in America, despite the fact that Hank also believes that Bush has effectively stopped all "Islamist" terrorist attacks on Americans in America. (Those terrorists couldn't have been Islamists, therefore Bush has a perfect record, because Islamists would have continued killing people, notwithstanding Bush's perfect record. Hank logic.)


Right?

If you don't also exclude Americans killed by terrorists in a secured compound for expatriates in Saudi Arabia, the Rs will end up having to explain that one. But it was a couple dozen Americans, so maybe it's just not "mass terrorism" and so it doesn't count.

As a matter of fact, I think you need a general exclusion for terrorism off US soil, because otherwise you have to check on how many Americans were killed in Spain or Bali or Pakistan or India in terrorist attacks - including some that were direct responses to our presence in Iraq.

Isn't the fundamental question whether we are safer today than we were when the Rs took office?

And isn't the answer obvious?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
No offense, but you would suck as a teacher. Thankfully, you aren't a teacher. For both these reasons, what you want isn't particularly relevant to this debate.

No offense, but you are an idiot that makes assumptions in total ignorance of the subject you are talking about. Why is it that the most ignorant are always the most sure of themselves? Have you ever worked as a teacher? I did work as a teacher and what makes you think you have any idea of how good of a teacher I was?

Originally posted by baltassoc OTOH, I know a lot of excellent career teachers who chose teaching precisely because of the job security

This is possible but I am pretty sure you are full of it. First, how do you know that they are good teachers? And they all have told you they are teachers because of the job security? I don't buy it. I have three former teachers that work for me right now. They still socialize with all the teachers they work with. I discuss teaching issues with them all the time and none have told me they stay because of job security. And they all talk about bad teachers they all know who won't ever leave because of job security.

Originally posted by baltassoc Telling them "Congratulations, you're a great teacher, so as a reward we're going to put you in a class of hard cases - but don't worry, we'll pay you more, at least until next year when the Republicans cut our funding" would cause them to quit.Immediately. I'm not making this up. I know a teacher who did exactly that (more precisely, retired early) when confronted with exactly that scenario when a new principal came into my high school. Since she was in my estimation the best teacher in the school, that was a pretty crappy result. Thankfully for me, I had just graduated.

You don't force teachers into the bad class rooms. You give them the option with higher pay. And just because this one teacher quit doesn't mean others will. You can't take an example of one teacher and extrapolate it to the entire profession.

You offer teachers more money and they will take it. Specially a young aggressive idealistic one. I have known many teachers and not one has told me that they stay because of job security. They do it because of the schedule and they love teaching. But they all would like higher pay.

It is the incompetant ones that stay for job security. They don't like the profession, but probably wouldn't be good at anything else (unlike the good teachers) so they stay because unlike other places, their incompetance is tolerated. The California school system is riddled with bad teachers and bad principles (the whole dance of the lemons scenario) and it is all because of this stupid tenure system.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
His argument was it requires stupid people in the White House to end up in Iraq.

You didn't read or listen to what he said. He didn't mention the white house or the administration. He said if you are smart you get a good education, and if you are not you end up in Iraq.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Isn't the fundamental question whether we are safer today than we were when the Rs took office?

And isn't the answer obvious?

wait. safer than we were, or safer than we thought we were?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It was a particularly stupid thing to say. I hope it has minimal impact.

S_A_M

Not if Karl Rove has anything to do with it. This was a gift from Kerry to him, and he is going to run with it.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Joe Sixpack reads the NYPost. Folks from the UES side read the Grey Lady.

Nice try.

I don't see a lot about the economy in the online version of the Post, either. (Hey, sue me -- I like Page Six.)

I think that you give the NYT too much credit for controlling the political discourse. The economy isn't the issue, not because Pinch wants Speaker Pelosi, but because voters are more interested in other issues.

The economy was doing pretty well leading up to the elections in 1968, too (the Dow was up for both 1967 and 1968), but you didn't hear too much it. Was that because the press wanted Nixon to win?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you recognize the difference between hyperbole and when I am actually explaning stuff?

C'mon, Hank. Don't be coy. There's still time for Rove to pull this sucker out.