Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

blah blah blah it's all Clinton's fault blah blah blah bush is perfect blah blah blah 2700 dead soldiers don't count.

Thanks for answering the question. 'twas as expected.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Hey, Spanks, maybe you can answer my question. To rephrase: do you guys have anything positive to run on?

This ain't exactly the "morning in America" campaign.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I liked the nutjob comment. If it means Democrats stop being weenies, I'm all for it.

I actually saw the videotape of what he said. There is no mistaking his meaning. And the fact he is defending it makes it even worse. They should take a page from the Republican play book with Foley. He should appologize and move on. There was a lot of focus on Rush Limbaugh and what he said about Michael J. Fox and now it has turned on Kerry.

As long as he fights it he gives the Republicans a weapon. But thankfully he is stupid and he will make this an issue up to election day and what he said will be played over and over again on TV.

As the old saying goes, you don't beat the other candidate, you win by not beating yourself.

[Hank Chinaski]

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

as i said somewhere else, I don't think polling info for congressional races is very good. You may be a little redfaced next week. But, as I suggested in 2004, the Dems taking a house of Congress would be a good thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
blah blah blah it's all Clinton's fault blah blah blah bush is perfect blah blah blah 2700 dead soldiers don't count.

Thanks for answering the question. 'twas as expected.

more soldiers will die, and for decades. did you read the part about where we let 20000 terrorists get trained? maybe when you read longer pieces you forget the early parts?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Chris Mathews and Dick Armey have my proxy:

• One surprise: just heard [Chris Matthews] say flat out that reading the full transcript it's clear that Kerry was insulting the president, not the troops. Dick Armey was on at the time and essentially agreed and laughed about how funny it was that the GOP was feigning mock outrage.

Kerry told the students that if they studied hard they could do well, but if they didn't "you get stuck in Iraq."


Here it is - watch it for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o

[Spanky]

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

No. You should vote GOP because the growth rate is lot better now than it was six years ago.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hey, Spanks, maybe you can answer my question. To rephrase: do you guys have anything positive to run on?

This ain't exactly the "morning in America" campaign.

The Taliban do not control Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein no longer controls Iraq, the recession that W. inherited is over, the Dow has recovered, since 9-11 Al Queda has not been able to kill anyone in the U.S., ..............

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why is it that the most ignorant are always the most sure of themselves?

(a) New Board Motto.

(b) Irony Alert!!:flag:

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hey, Spanks, maybe you can answer my question. To rephrase: do you guys have anything positive to run on?

This ain't exactly the "morning in America" campaign.

Do the Dems?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
LA airport, 2002. 2 dead, six shot. It's why you don't hear Bush saying no terrorist attacks on his watch.*

And a few school schootings, but the shooters were American so it doesn't count, right.


*Other than the ones he blames on Clinton.

Bring 'em in and we can talk about Oklahoma City.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That's actually not the case for the volunteer military -- as least not until the past 3-4 years when they have had to substantially lower their standards to meet recruiting goals.

Interestingly enough, and for similar reasons, the Army has also significantly raised its age limits for new recruits (up to 41, I think) -- although they won't put the old folks in combat units. This offers a wonderful opportunity for the many frustrated patriots on this Board and elsewhere to let actions speak louder than words.l

In the period I'm most familiar with -- the early to mid 1990s -- the educational background and proficiency of the "average" recruit exceeded that of the population as a whole. i.e. HS diploma was mandatory, a notable percentage had at least some college courses, and the Army offered substantial additional training and education (with some remedial aspect) in the specialized training for each MOS (Military Occupational Speciality) that every enlisted soldier attends immediately after basic training. The last part, at least, is still true. I believe the HS diploma is no longer mandatory.

S_A_M

Bad mistake to make.

Thank you. Despite opinion from certain quarters that the military is comprised of failures or people just too poor and therefore stupid to git any good larnin' in 'em, it's not the case. And for the record, poor people do occasionally make something of themselves and are as capable of growing and developing intellectually as anyone else. Jesus. The military can and has offered exactly what the ads promise - growth, education and other skills - to its recruits. I don't care if Kerry meant it or not with his stupid "joke" (thumbs-up for the vetting process on that one...par for the course for that guy), it's telling that those who tend most to be anti-military-action are those who seem to assume that military are, by and large, poor, dumb idiots.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by nononono
Thank you. Despite opinion from certain quarters that the military is comprised of failures or people just too poor and therefore stupid to git any good larnin' in 'em, it's not the case. And for the record, poor people do occasionally make something of themselves and are as capable of growing and developing intellectually as anyone else. Jesus. The military can and has offered exactly what the ads promise - growth, education and other skills - to its recruits. I don't care if Kerry meant it or not with his stupid "joke" (thumbs-up for the vetting process on that one...par for the course for that guy), it's telling that those who tend most to be anti-military-action are those who seem to assume that military are, by and large, poor, dumb idiots.

it actually is the funniest part, while they all claim Kerry meant something, anything, else, than "army guys are dumb", their posts could mostly be boiled down to "army guys are dumb."

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?



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.



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.

I have worked as a teacher. My parents are teachers. My parents' friends are teachers. I know a bit about what motivates teachers. I think you would be a bad teacher because, well, I do.

Job security is important. Can you compensate for it by paying people more? Sometimes, yes. How about a little test: you ask your many teacher friends how much more they would have to be paid to put the question of their continued employement squarely into the hands of 30 (or 150) students every year and/or the discretion of administrators. I don't think the answer is any kind of number that any taxpayer is willing to accept. I asked my mother: her answer was $40k a year.

She has been named her school district's teacher of the year twice.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it actually is the funniest part, while they all claim Kerry meant something, anything, else, than "army guys are dumb", their posts could mostly be boiled down to "army guys are dumb."

I am wondering how many people here, and otherwise opining in the press, etc., have had the experience of actually personally feeling the military protecting them, living with them, knowing exactly how smart they have to be to do a lot of what they do.