How about answering the WOMD question? Those don't seem to have turned up yet.
I realize you don't have any real answers. I'm just asking.
Where are the WMD? I don't know, do you? I have the same questions about it you do. I just don't automatically assume that Bush lied just because we haven't found them.
"The next best thing". You can't honestly believe that. I can understand strong disagreement with policy, but this level of hatred is unreasonable. I can even understand not liking his personality, manner, etc. But "next best thing as a leader to satan?". Wow.
It's quite amusing, really, because while you have an unbelievable problem with Bush, you haven't been able to examine and articulate exactly which policies you think are flawed, why they are flawed, and what negative effect they've had on the country. You can't do so on the economy. You can't do so with regard to terrorism. You can't do so on the environment. There are policies I disagree with Bush on as well, or think haven't turned out well (such as the No Child Left Behind Act), but the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to discuss each one, it's direct effect, and what I think could have been done better or needs to be changed.
I've also not heard a single good reason why one would support John Kerry over George Bush. Kerry's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He's not going to cut your taxes. He's not going to "save" the environment. He's not going raise military pay or increase education spending more than the 39% it's already going up. He's not going to magically make the Arab world love the US. He won't cut the deficit, because...wait for it...he's a tax and spend liberal of the proudest Mass. traditon. He's on every side of every issue, is WAY richer than Bush's whole family combined, and looks like the old He-Man character "Skeletor" on a bad hair day. Explain to me how he'd be better than Bush?
Reasons why Bush is not a good leader of this country simply:
Policies with regard to the environment place control of the regulation with the very organizations that pollute. Sorry, but while benelavent companies may exists, profit motives drive actions.
Policies with regard to education avoid confronting the issues of the how/why the american schools are failing. The belief that giving school choice will magically boost the education of ALL individuals is not only naive but flatly and observably wrong. The democrats are not much better on this issue. Nation wide standards are a pie in the sky idea that without proper funding and time have a very low chance of working.
Policies with regard to international relations fail to recognize the significance/importance of other political entities. While the war hawks and my country or no one sorts would overwhelmingly believe that the waltzing into iraq and to a lesser extent our Afganistan missions are a sign of the US using its power for the good of the US, we have effectively destabilized Afganistan, Pakistan (and possibly by association India), Iraq, Saudi Arabia and time will tell where else. While I certainly agree there were problems with these areas to begin with, Bush's international policy having acted without a clear purpose other than "establishing democracy" has failed to provide the permanent solution and has indeed, and this should be relatively uncontested, destabilized everywhere our troops have been. Again, this shows Bush's utter (and I will take the moment to make a jab at the man, a lifelong) failure to finish a job.
I disagree with almost everything this astute politician's administration has done/set a precedent for.
I will have to admit that I don't think Kerry is that far off from Bush on a lot of issues, but political change often occurs incrementally and right now our nation is not being lead well or in a direction I would want my children to grow up in. And that is my own and insurmountable bias.
Where are the WMD? I don't know, do you? I have the same questions about it you do. I just don't automatically assume that Bush lied just because we haven't found them.
"The next best thing". You can't honestly believe that. I can understand strong disagreement with policy, but this level of hatred is unreasonable. I can even understand not liking his personality, manner, etc. But "next best thing as a leader to satan?". Wow.
It's quite amusing, really, because while you have an unbelievable problem with Bush, you haven't been able to examine and articulate exactly which policies you think are flawed, why they are flawed, and what negative effect they've had on the country. You can't do so on the economy. You can't do so with regard to terrorism. You can't do so on the environment. There are policies I disagree with Bush on as well, or think haven't turned out well (such as the No Child Left Behind Act), but the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to discuss each one, it's direct effect, and what I think could have been done better or needs to be changed.
I've also not heard a single good reason why one would support John Kerry over George Bush. Kerry's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He's not going to cut your taxes. He's not going to "save" the environment. He's not going raise military pay or increase education spending more than the 39% it's already going up. He's not going to magically make the Arab world love the US. He won't cut the deficit, because...wait for it...he's a tax and spend liberal of the proudest Mass. traditon. He's on every side of every issue, is WAY richer than Bush's whole family combined, and looks like the old He-Man character "Skeletor" on a bad hair day. Explain to me how he'd be better than Bush?
Well you know I was going to reply but the others got to it before I did.
Look we've been over this for almost 2 years now and it's clear you will support Bush no matter what he does. The difference is that many others now have come to see what I have for almost 4 years now.
Bush for the many reasons we have talked about for the last 2 years is the worst president I've seen in my almost 51 years ( next monday ). Some say the worst ever.
No he's not Satan but he's the worst leader of america I've ever seen and that's enough for me.
As far as the WOMD go they don't exist/didn't exist. That's the big secret as to why they haven't been found. Also I will lay it out for you again. That doesn't mean that Bush lied. However the only other alternative is that he's just incompetent. Take your pick. No buck passing. This isn't someone else's fault and there is no middle ground on this one. He's either fit to be president or not. And given the current scenerio I think you already know the answer.
Well you know I was going to reply but the others got to it before I did.
Look we've been over this for almost 2 years now and it's clear you will support Bush no matter what he does. The difference is that many others now have come to see what I have for almost 4 years now.
Bush for the many reasons we have talked about for the last 2 years is the worst president I've seen in my almost 51 years ( next monday ). Some say the worst ever.
No he's not Satan but he's the worst leader of america I've ever seen and that's enough for me.
As far as the WOMD go they don't exist/didn't exist. That's the big secret as to why they haven't been found. Also I will lay it out for you again. That doesn't mean that Bush lied. However the only other alternative is that he's just incompetent. Take your pick. No buck passing. This isn't someone else's fault and there is no middle ground on this one. He's either fit to be president or not. And given the current scenerio I think you already know the answer.
I will not support Bush no matter what he does. I have laid out specific things I disagree with him on. I have also talked about what I think he could have done better. Overall, I support both him and his policies. Deal with it.
The worst President? There is absolutely no basis for that statement. Though we can disagree about policy, Bush has gotten most of his 1st term agenda passed, which is quite an accomplishment to say the least. If you're going to make a statement like that, you must back it up. What are your criteria? I understand you disagree about invading Iraq. That doesn't make Bush a "bad President". Are the only good Presidents ones whom you agree with? What's the standard, jimmac? If you want to talk about Presidential fuck ups, let's talk about Clinton and nationalized health care, Carter and the hostage rescue, Nixon and watergate, Johnson and Vietnam, and Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. Let's talk about Truman cozying up to "Uncle Joe". Were they all bad Presidents too? Who was a good President, jimmac?
As for your ridiculous FALSE DILEMMA debate tactic regarding "he lied or was incompetent, well...it's just laughable. There are many other possibilites. The weapons may not have existed, but that doesn't mean either of your "choices" is accurate. The weapons could have been moved to Syria. The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. Who the hell knows. There are too many possibilities. We already know our intelligence was seriously flawed. Let me ask you: If the Pentagon and CIA showed Bush convincing evidence that Saddam had WMD (and that he had used them), and that intelligence proved inaccurate or mostly inaccurate, how is that Bush's personal responsility? Or, are you saying that *any moron* ccould have seen the difference? Really...that can't be your position, can it?
Reasons why Bush is not a good leader of this country simply:
Policies with regard to the environment place control of the regulation with the very organizations that pollute. Sorry, but while benelavent companies may exists, profit motives drive actions.
Policies with regard to education avoid confronting the issues of the how/why the american schools are failing. The belief that giving school choice will magically boost the education of ALL individuals is not only naive but flatly and observably wrong. The democrats are not much better on this issue. Nation wide standards are a pie in the sky idea that without proper funding and time have a very low chance of working.
Policies with regard to international relations fail to recognize the significance/importance of other political entities. While the war hawks and my country or no one sorts would overwhelmingly believe that the waltzing into iraq and to a lesser extent our Afganistan missions are a sign of the US using its power for the good of the US, we have effectively destabilized Afganistan, Pakistan (and possibly by association India), Iraq, Saudi Arabia and time will tell where else. While I certainly agree there were problems with these areas to begin with, Bush's international policy having acted without a clear purpose other than "establishing democracy" has failed to provide the permanent solution and has indeed, and this should be relatively uncontested, destabilized everywhere our troops have been. Again, this shows Bush's utter (and I will take the moment to make a jab at the man, a lifelong) failure to finish a job.
I disagree with almost everything this astute politician's administration has done/set a precedent for.
I will have to admit that I don't think Kerry is that far off from Bush on a lot of issues, but political change often occurs incrementally and right now our nation is not being lead well or in a direction I would want my children to grow up in. And that is my own and insurmountable bias.
Environment: Please lay out which specific policies and "deregulations" you are taking issue with. We'll need a little more than "Bush makes pollution control voluntary". BTW, prfit motive is pretty much the only thing that causes a corporation to take any action whatsoever. This doesn't make corporations evil, it's just a fact.
Education: This is a very complex and, frankly, "huge" issue. I suppose we can criticize Bush for not doing enough, but the fact is, he did SOMETHING. You can't criticize him for not funding education, because the federal education budget has EXPLODED under Bush. It's increased almost 50% since Bush took office. The reason American schools are failing has very little to do with money. We spend more on education than any country in the world. the problem is our entire approach. There is little STUDENT accountability. Teachers are still not paid on par with other professions. We teach too MANY concepts per grade level, as opposed to engaging in in-depth study of core ones. We don't value the arts enough. None of these is fixable from the President's chair. At least Bush pushed for school accountability. The NCLBA needs refinement for more reasons than I can list, but it's a decent start.
As for international relations, what political entities are you referring to? I must assume you mean the UN. The US has supported and worked with the UN despite its corruption, anti-semitism and utter inffectiveness, and we continue to do so. How much more tied to the UN should we be? Your statement on destabilization has no basis in fact. How has it been destablized? That would imply any sort of stability existed previously. There isn't much case for that. I need to ask you to elaborate. Pre-9/11, the US sat back and did nothing while we are attacked time and time again. Now, we're not only attacking current terrorists, but remvoing their havens as well. The only real way to do this has nothing to do with "winning hearts and minds" as the lefties contend. It has to do with establishing democracy, which is the only long term solution.
(btw... looking at the Federal budget for the department of education under Bush's tenure, roughly half of the EXPLODED federal budget increases are for scholarships for post-secondary education -- meaning not going to the primary/secondary education that is the bedrock of this country's education system and where all of Bush's educational agendas are focused. The other half is going to grants to states because simply put state spending died when the economy went bust... the money has to come from somewhere... Bush isn't funding his No Child Left Behind initiative. Also, and this is a sore point with every educator I have ever talked to: the federal budget for education is around 60 B now. The war in Iraq, via special appropriations will likely be more than 65 B in a few weeks).
Umm...no. You haven't demonstrated cause for your positions.
Education:
Quote:
(btw... looking at the Federal budget for the department of education under Bush's tenure, roughly half of the EXPLODED federal budget increases are for scholarships for post-secondary education -- meaning not going to the primary/secondary education that is the bedrock of this country's education system and where all of Bush's educational agendas are focused.
I'd like to ask for a link to that. Secondly, even if true, how do you expalin the huge increase in Title 1 and Reading program funds, which directly impact instruction? Concerning state grants, I'm not sure I understand your criticism. The economy tanks, and states are forced to freeze spending. OK...I'm with you (though this sounds to me like an implicit blaming of Bush for the economy is well). So, the federal government grants states the funds to help fill the gap. This is somehow bad? Let me ask...what would you be saying if the feds DIDN'T spend all that grant money?
Quote:
Bush isn't funding his No Child Left Behind initiative. Also, and this is a sore point with every educator I have ever talked to: the federal budget for education is around 60 B now. The war in Iraq, via special appropriations will likely be more than 65 B in a few weeks).
Congress funds and appropriates, not Bush. But besides that, I really have to take issue with that lst point on the war. I'm an educator, and I've encountered a lot of dislike of the NCLBA. However, I've never heard the war cost/education budget comparison. I suspect the reason is that it's sort of False Dilemma approach to the issue. You're implying that the education budget and the cost of the war are inversely proportional. In other words, the more we spend on the war, the less we're going to spend on education. This is not necessarily true! If this is how things work, you should be screaming about every penny of pork barrell social spending that takes place. You should also be making the same argument when COLAs are offered for social security, budgets are increased for medicare, and for every other appropriation. It's an illogical approach.
The weapons could have been moved to Syria. The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public.
You think we've found the WMD? Please, please stop.
(btw... looking at the Federal budget for the department of education under Bush's tenure, roughly half of the EXPLODED federal budget increases are for scholarships for post-secondary education -- meaning not going to the primary/secondary education that is the bedrock of this country's education system and where all of Bush's educational agendas are focused. The other half is going to grants to states because simply put state spending died when the economy went bust... the money has to come from somewhere... Bush isn't funding his No Child Left Behind initiative. Also, and this is a sore point with every educator I have ever talked to: the federal budget for education is around 60 B now. The war in Iraq, via special appropriations will likely be more than 65 B in a few weeks).
I'm an educator and you haven't asked me about it.
No Child Left Behind is most hated because many states and schools had no, repeat NO means of measuring the progress of their children. The reasons behind that is many school disticts don't want their progress measured.
Let me say that in most instances, it is still very easy to get a decent education in this country today. If there is a flacky teacher, parents who are advocates for their children, or children who genuinely care about their education find away to avoid the bad apples. The reality is that educationally, most people don't care. They want the quality of education to be like the quality of food they eat. Fast, high in calories, and cheap. The food makes us obese, and the same attitude toward education makes you dumb.
Now I can understand the mentality of some of these teachers with regard to testing. I mean if we had a national standardized fitness test and judged how good or bad the doctors or hospitals were based on how everyone did, we would see medical care in this country as overpriced and f*cked up because most people eat gross and sit on their a$$. So I understand why most teachers feel the same way when it is testing and students.
So most districts just try to help the students and avoid measuring the failure that is occuring when the three legged stool (parents, teachers, and students) becomes a one legged stool (teachers) and we are amazed that anyone trying to sit on it fails. (falls on their a$$)
NCLB makes it so they have to measure their progress. It also makes it possible to be penalized if they don't show improvement. We've had the equivelent of NCLB here in California for years before Bush was even in office. So I've watched the same rhetoric directed at different people including Gray Davis who was a big testing advocate.
I'm an educator and you haven't asked me about it.
No Child Left Behind is most hated because many states and schools had no, repeat NO means of measuring the progress of their children. The reasons behind that is many school disticts don't want their progress measured.
I'm pretty familiar with the topic of educational inequity. What I'm generally hearing is not that schools are so entrenched that they refuse to measure students' progress-- but that NCLB leaves the state and the local school district with essentially an unfunded mandate to do so. Again, the cost burden seems to be the main criticism.
I'm pretty familiar with the topic of educational inequity. What I'm generally hearing is not that schools are so entrenched that they refuse to measure students' progress-- but that NCLB leaves the state and the local school district with essentially an unfunded mandate to do so. Again, the cost burden seems to be the main criticism.
Federal spending on education is huge. Bush easily covered the cost of testing in his educational spending increases, which were quite large.
The "unfunded" mandate relates to cries after the fact to "rememdy" the fact that some of these children are failing even after extensive spending and intervention. The reality is that neither Republicans or Democrats will blame the parents or the children for their own failures. The approach to the problem basically amounts to getting a bigger hammer which costs even more. The "even more" part is what is considered an "unfunded mandate."
Let me break it down in the simpliest manner.
You are a school principal. Your high school graduation rate is 75%. I give you 40% more money and through various programs, outreaches, afterschool programs, etc. you manage to convince 5% more students to graduate. When asked why the other 20% didn't graduate, you would say that they are even more needy, and need even more money than the 40% increase. Thus expecting them to graduate without providing even more money is an "unfunded mandate."
That is essentually what has happened be it a Republican or Democratic governor or president. The alternative is of course asking if those last 20% really care to graduate, are capable of doing the work on that level, etc. Both Republicans and Democrats favor free trade which means low skill jobs are leaving for overseas. That means EVERYONE has to suddenly be high skill or else they will be stuck at McJobs. But very few are willing to tackle whether everyone truly can be say an engineer, lawyer, or doctor to earn appropriate wages. We say everyone will have a world class education.
Umm...no. You haven't demonstrated cause for your positions.
My positions aren't on trial here -- it is fairly certain as well that since I have stated my positions and they ARE based upon policies by this administration, my positions have cause. And of note is that you or anybody else on these forums haven't had there positions on trial, so why start with mine?
My point with money for war or money for education is simple, if the government were to invest money that is being wasted on this war for education, we may be able to rebuild a few thousand inner city schools, pay teachers a whole lot more and invest in studies that track what changes can be done to improve education rather than a lot of hot air dialogue being passed between purported experts.
On the note of nationalized testing: In principle it is a good thing. In practice, and this is where I disagree with both parties, there need to be local, regional, then national standards. A population of students in rural SC are not going to be equipped to reach a national standard that is set based upon some sort of moving (improving?) average. There is 1) no basis for this level of education in the community, 2) a local tradition of leaving school to work, and 3) few to no teachers willing to work there. Education is the one thing I don't think the government should screw around with unless they know that their program will show an improvement and NCLB and school choice have so far either provided no means for improvement or by helping the few lucky ones screwed the rest.
My mother is an educator at the primary/secondary and post-secondary level. My father is one at the medical school/residency level. I have grown up with education theory floating in my household and have seen first hand the simultaneous animosity and arbitrarily cruel success of the magnet schools i attended. I got a great education, but at what cost to the students at my home school who didn't have the devoted teachers, and whose student body had the top 20% skimmed off by my high school? This is not simply a matter of 'oh look how lucky i am, i hate myself;' i honestly think that the magnet programs i attended were stop gap measures in a school system that is obviously failing. This has been the way of the us education system for 50 years almost -- help along the few that will probably be successful; screw the rest.
I will not support Bush no matter what he does. I have laid out specific things I disagree with him on. I have also talked about what I think he could have done better. Overall, I support both him and his policies. Deal with it.
The worst President? There is absolutely no basis for that statement. Though we can disagree about policy, Bush has gotten most of his 1st term agenda passed, which is quite an accomplishment to say the least. If you're going to make a statement like that, you must back it up. What are your criteria? I understand you disagree about invading Iraq. That doesn't make Bush a "bad President". Are the only good Presidents ones whom you agree with? What's the standard, jimmac? If you want to talk about Presidential fuck ups, let's talk about Clinton and nationalized health care, Carter and the hostage rescue, Nixon and watergate, Johnson and Vietnam, and Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. Let's talk about Truman cozying up to "Uncle Joe". Were they all bad Presidents too? Who was a good President, jimmac?
As for your ridiculous FALSE DILEMMA debate tactic regarding "he lied or was incompetent, well...it's just laughable. There are many other possibilites. The weapons may not have existed, but that doesn't mean either of your "choices" is accurate. The weapons could have been moved to Syria. The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. Who the hell knows. There are too many possibilities. We already know our intelligence was seriously flawed. Let me ask you: If the Pentagon and CIA showed Bush convincing evidence that Saddam had WMD (and that he had used them), and that intelligence proved inaccurate or mostly inaccurate, how is that Bush's personal responsility? Or, are you saying that *any moron* ccould have seen the difference? Really...that can't be your position, can it?
Who was a good president? Well Kennedy, Carter ( in his way ), Hell even Nixon ( only Nixon could go to China ) in his way even though in the end he turned out to be a crook, Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
There have been many good presidents. All of them human and they made some mistakes. Bush however doesn't care what happens to us that's clear. He has another agenda and we're just cannon fodder.
I asked you not to pass the blame and there you go again true to form. None of the other presidents on my short list tried to blame other's for their short commings ( that's something else I don't like about Bush ). If the Pentagon or the CIA or whoever showed Bush evidence he chose to ignore the many other people who were telling him this just wasn't so ( this includes the inspectors in Iraq ).
Nope, I'm sorry but your arguments just don't deflect the blame or reflect reality.
" The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. "
Where are the WMD? I don't know, do you? I have the same questions about it you do. I just don't automatically assume that Bush lied just because we haven't found them.
"The next best thing". You can't honestly believe that. I can understand strong disagreement with policy, but this level of hatred is unreasonable. I can even understand not liking his personality, manner, etc. But "next best thing as a leader to satan?". Wow.
It's quite amusing, really, because while you have an unbelievable problem with Bush, you haven't been able to examine and articulate exactly which policies you think are flawed, why they are flawed, and what negative effect they've had on the country. You can't do so on the economy. You can't do so with regard to terrorism. You can't do so on the environment. There are policies I disagree with Bush on as well, or think haven't turned out well (such as the No Child Left Behind Act), but the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to discuss each one, it's direct effect, and what I think could have been done better or needs to be changed.
I've also not heard a single good reason why one would support John Kerry over George Bush. Kerry's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He's not going to cut your taxes. He's not going to "save" the environment. He's not going raise military pay or increase education spending more than the 39% it's already going up. He's not going to magically make the Arab world love the US. He won't cut the deficit, because...wait for it...he's a tax and spend liberal of the proudest Mass. traditon. He's on every side of every issue, is WAY richer than Bush's whole family combined, and looks like the old He-Man character "Skeletor" on a bad hair day. Explain to me how he'd be better than Bush?
No Kerry won't solve all of these problems in either one or two terms. No one could. It's that bad!
What he will do is not create or make these problems worse.
And quite possibly improve the situations. Bush really has fvked things up for whoever comes next.
We're stuck with many examples of Bush's legacy. Iraq being one of them. We just can't pull out right now. We made the mess and now we have a responsability to fix it.
Also I really don't give a rip what Kerry looks like or how much money he has. You're getting desperate with that one.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
You mean they were not on the same boat AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?
That is an outrageous distortion on the part of O'Niell!!!!
if that is the case it reveals the partisan agenda of his statement!
Glad you see it my way.
Originally posted by jimmac
Nope! But as a leader he's the next best thing.
How about answering the WOMD question? Those don't seem to have turned up yet.
I realize you don't have any real answers. I'm just asking.
Where are the WMD? I don't know, do you? I have the same questions about it you do. I just don't automatically assume that Bush lied just because we haven't found them.
"The next best thing". You can't honestly believe that. I can understand strong disagreement with policy, but this level of hatred is unreasonable. I can even understand not liking his personality, manner, etc. But "next best thing as a leader to satan?". Wow.
It's quite amusing, really, because while you have an unbelievable problem with Bush, you haven't been able to examine and articulate exactly which policies you think are flawed, why they are flawed, and what negative effect they've had on the country. You can't do so on the economy. You can't do so with regard to terrorism. You can't do so on the environment. There are policies I disagree with Bush on as well, or think haven't turned out well (such as the No Child Left Behind Act), but the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to discuss each one, it's direct effect, and what I think could have been done better or needs to be changed.
I've also not heard a single good reason why one would support John Kerry over George Bush. Kerry's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He's not going to cut your taxes. He's not going to "save" the environment. He's not going raise military pay or increase education spending more than the 39% it's already going up. He's not going to magically make the Arab world love the US. He won't cut the deficit, because...wait for it...he's a tax and spend liberal of the proudest Mass. traditon. He's on every side of every issue, is WAY richer than Bush's whole family combined, and looks like the old He-Man character "Skeletor" on a bad hair day. Explain to me how he'd be better than Bush?
Policies with regard to the environment place control of the regulation with the very organizations that pollute. Sorry, but while benelavent companies may exists, profit motives drive actions.
Policies with regard to education avoid confronting the issues of the how/why the american schools are failing. The belief that giving school choice will magically boost the education of ALL individuals is not only naive but flatly and observably wrong. The democrats are not much better on this issue. Nation wide standards are a pie in the sky idea that without proper funding and time have a very low chance of working.
Policies with regard to international relations fail to recognize the significance/importance of other political entities. While the war hawks and my country or no one sorts would overwhelmingly believe that the waltzing into iraq and to a lesser extent our Afganistan missions are a sign of the US using its power for the good of the US, we have effectively destabilized Afganistan, Pakistan (and possibly by association India), Iraq, Saudi Arabia and time will tell where else. While I certainly agree there were problems with these areas to begin with, Bush's international policy having acted without a clear purpose other than "establishing democracy" has failed to provide the permanent solution and has indeed, and this should be relatively uncontested, destabilized everywhere our troops have been. Again, this shows Bush's utter (and I will take the moment to make a jab at the man, a lifelong) failure to finish a job.
I disagree with almost everything this astute politician's administration has done/set a precedent for.
I will have to admit that I don't think Kerry is that far off from Bush on a lot of issues, but political change often occurs incrementally and right now our nation is not being lead well or in a direction I would want my children to grow up in. And that is my own and insurmountable bias.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Where are the WMD? I don't know, do you? I have the same questions about it you do.
Well, you've been provided with the answers day in and day out for over a year and a half now.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Where are the WMD? I don't know, do you? I have the same questions about it you do. I just don't automatically assume that Bush lied just because we haven't found them.
"The next best thing". You can't honestly believe that. I can understand strong disagreement with policy, but this level of hatred is unreasonable. I can even understand not liking his personality, manner, etc. But "next best thing as a leader to satan?". Wow.
It's quite amusing, really, because while you have an unbelievable problem with Bush, you haven't been able to examine and articulate exactly which policies you think are flawed, why they are flawed, and what negative effect they've had on the country. You can't do so on the economy. You can't do so with regard to terrorism. You can't do so on the environment. There are policies I disagree with Bush on as well, or think haven't turned out well (such as the No Child Left Behind Act), but the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to discuss each one, it's direct effect, and what I think could have been done better or needs to be changed.
I've also not heard a single good reason why one would support John Kerry over George Bush. Kerry's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He's not going to cut your taxes. He's not going to "save" the environment. He's not going raise military pay or increase education spending more than the 39% it's already going up. He's not going to magically make the Arab world love the US. He won't cut the deficit, because...wait for it...he's a tax and spend liberal of the proudest Mass. traditon. He's on every side of every issue, is WAY richer than Bush's whole family combined, and looks like the old He-Man character "Skeletor" on a bad hair day. Explain to me how he'd be better than Bush?
Well you know I was going to reply but the others got to it before I did.
Look we've been over this for almost 2 years now and it's clear you will support Bush no matter what he does. The difference is that many others now have come to see what I have for almost 4 years now.
Bush for the many reasons we have talked about for the last 2 years is the worst president I've seen in my almost 51 years ( next monday ). Some say the worst ever.
No he's not Satan but he's the worst leader of america I've ever seen and that's enough for me.
As far as the WOMD go they don't exist/didn't exist. That's the big secret as to why they haven't been found. Also I will lay it out for you again. That doesn't mean that Bush lied. However the only other alternative is that he's just incompetent. Take your pick. No buck passing. This isn't someone else's fault and there is no middle ground on this one. He's either fit to be president or not. And given the current scenerio I think you already know the answer.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well you know I was going to reply but the others got to it before I did.
Look we've been over this for almost 2 years now and it's clear you will support Bush no matter what he does. The difference is that many others now have come to see what I have for almost 4 years now.
Bush for the many reasons we have talked about for the last 2 years is the worst president I've seen in my almost 51 years ( next monday ). Some say the worst ever.
No he's not Satan but he's the worst leader of america I've ever seen and that's enough for me.
As far as the WOMD go they don't exist/didn't exist. That's the big secret as to why they haven't been found. Also I will lay it out for you again. That doesn't mean that Bush lied. However the only other alternative is that he's just incompetent. Take your pick. No buck passing. This isn't someone else's fault and there is no middle ground on this one. He's either fit to be president or not. And given the current scenerio I think you already know the answer.
I will not support Bush no matter what he does. I have laid out specific things I disagree with him on. I have also talked about what I think he could have done better. Overall, I support both him and his policies. Deal with it.
The worst President? There is absolutely no basis for that statement. Though we can disagree about policy, Bush has gotten most of his 1st term agenda passed, which is quite an accomplishment to say the least. If you're going to make a statement like that, you must back it up. What are your criteria? I understand you disagree about invading Iraq. That doesn't make Bush a "bad President". Are the only good Presidents ones whom you agree with? What's the standard, jimmac? If you want to talk about Presidential fuck ups, let's talk about Clinton and nationalized health care, Carter and the hostage rescue, Nixon and watergate, Johnson and Vietnam, and Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. Let's talk about Truman cozying up to "Uncle Joe". Were they all bad Presidents too? Who was a good President, jimmac?
As for your ridiculous FALSE DILEMMA debate tactic regarding "he lied or was incompetent, well...it's just laughable. There are many other possibilites. The weapons may not have existed, but that doesn't mean either of your "choices" is accurate. The weapons could have been moved to Syria. The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. Who the hell knows. There are too many possibilities. We already know our intelligence was seriously flawed. Let me ask you: If the Pentagon and CIA showed Bush convincing evidence that Saddam had WMD (and that he had used them), and that intelligence proved inaccurate or mostly inaccurate, how is that Bush's personal responsility? Or, are you saying that *any moron* ccould have seen the difference? Really...that can't be your position, can it?
Originally posted by billybobsky
Reasons why Bush is not a good leader of this country simply:
Policies with regard to the environment place control of the regulation with the very organizations that pollute. Sorry, but while benelavent companies may exists, profit motives drive actions.
Policies with regard to education avoid confronting the issues of the how/why the american schools are failing. The belief that giving school choice will magically boost the education of ALL individuals is not only naive but flatly and observably wrong. The democrats are not much better on this issue. Nation wide standards are a pie in the sky idea that without proper funding and time have a very low chance of working.
Policies with regard to international relations fail to recognize the significance/importance of other political entities. While the war hawks and my country or no one sorts would overwhelmingly believe that the waltzing into iraq and to a lesser extent our Afganistan missions are a sign of the US using its power for the good of the US, we have effectively destabilized Afganistan, Pakistan (and possibly by association India), Iraq, Saudi Arabia and time will tell where else. While I certainly agree there were problems with these areas to begin with, Bush's international policy having acted without a clear purpose other than "establishing democracy" has failed to provide the permanent solution and has indeed, and this should be relatively uncontested, destabilized everywhere our troops have been. Again, this shows Bush's utter (and I will take the moment to make a jab at the man, a lifelong) failure to finish a job.
I disagree with almost everything this astute politician's administration has done/set a precedent for.
I will have to admit that I don't think Kerry is that far off from Bush on a lot of issues, but political change often occurs incrementally and right now our nation is not being lead well or in a direction I would want my children to grow up in. And that is my own and insurmountable bias.
Environment: Please lay out which specific policies and "deregulations" you are taking issue with. We'll need a little more than "Bush makes pollution control voluntary". BTW, prfit motive is pretty much the only thing that causes a corporation to take any action whatsoever. This doesn't make corporations evil, it's just a fact.
Education: This is a very complex and, frankly, "huge" issue. I suppose we can criticize Bush for not doing enough, but the fact is, he did SOMETHING. You can't criticize him for not funding education, because the federal education budget has EXPLODED under Bush. It's increased almost 50% since Bush took office. The reason American schools are failing has very little to do with money. We spend more on education than any country in the world. the problem is our entire approach. There is little STUDENT accountability. Teachers are still not paid on par with other professions. We teach too MANY concepts per grade level, as opposed to engaging in in-depth study of core ones. We don't value the arts enough. None of these is fixable from the President's chair. At least Bush pushed for school accountability. The NCLBA needs refinement for more reasons than I can list, but it's a decent start.
As for international relations, what political entities are you referring to? I must assume you mean the UN. The US has supported and worked with the UN despite its corruption, anti-semitism and utter inffectiveness, and we continue to do so. How much more tied to the UN should we be? Your statement on destabilization has no basis in fact. How has it been destablized? That would imply any sort of stability existed previously. There isn't much case for that. I need to ask you to elaborate. Pre-9/11, the US sat back and did nothing while we are attacked time and time again. Now, we're not only attacking current terrorists, but remvoing their havens as well. The only real way to do this has nothing to do with "winning hearts and minds" as the lefties contend. It has to do with establishing democracy, which is the only long term solution.
Originally posted by billybobsky
We are just going to have to disagree sdw...
(btw... looking at the Federal budget for the department of education under Bush's tenure, roughly half of the EXPLODED federal budget increases are for scholarships for post-secondary education -- meaning not going to the primary/secondary education that is the bedrock of this country's education system and where all of Bush's educational agendas are focused. The other half is going to grants to states because simply put state spending died when the economy went bust... the money has to come from somewhere... Bush isn't funding his No Child Left Behind initiative. Also, and this is a sore point with every educator I have ever talked to: the federal budget for education is around 60 B now. The war in Iraq, via special appropriations will likely be more than 65 B in a few weeks).
http://costofwar.com/
Originally posted by hardhead
These folk appear to have taken great care in the accuracy of the counter. It's still an guesstimate/estimate. If it's anywhere near the truth...
http://costofwar.com/
well there you go... i was simplifying the expression by citing direct appropriations for the war effort...
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth... bunch of f*cking liars.
Originally posted by billybobsky
We are just going to have to disagree sdw...
Umm...no. You haven't demonstrated cause for your positions.
Education:
(btw... looking at the Federal budget for the department of education under Bush's tenure, roughly half of the EXPLODED federal budget increases are for scholarships for post-secondary education -- meaning not going to the primary/secondary education that is the bedrock of this country's education system and where all of Bush's educational agendas are focused.
I'd like to ask for a link to that. Secondly, even if true, how do you expalin the huge increase in Title 1 and Reading program funds, which directly impact instruction? Concerning state grants, I'm not sure I understand your criticism. The economy tanks, and states are forced to freeze spending. OK...I'm with you (though this sounds to me like an implicit blaming of Bush for the economy is well). So, the federal government grants states the funds to help fill the gap. This is somehow bad? Let me ask...what would you be saying if the feds DIDN'T spend all that grant money?
Bush isn't funding his No Child Left Behind initiative. Also, and this is a sore point with every educator I have ever talked to: the federal budget for education is around 60 B now. The war in Iraq, via special appropriations will likely be more than 65 B in a few weeks).
Congress funds and appropriates, not Bush. But besides that, I really have to take issue with that lst point on the war. I'm an educator, and I've encountered a lot of dislike of the NCLBA. However, I've never heard the war cost/education budget comparison. I suspect the reason is that it's sort of False Dilemma approach to the issue. You're implying that the education budget and the cost of the war are inversely proportional. In other words, the more we spend on the war, the less we're going to spend on education. This is not necessarily true! If this is how things work, you should be screaming about every penny of pork barrell social spending that takes place. You should also be making the same argument when COLAs are offered for social security, budgets are increased for medicare, and for every other appropriation. It's an illogical approach.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The weapons could have been moved to Syria. The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public.
You think we've found the WMD? Please, please stop.
Originally posted by billybobsky
(btw... looking at the Federal budget for the department of education under Bush's tenure, roughly half of the EXPLODED federal budget increases are for scholarships for post-secondary education -- meaning not going to the primary/secondary education that is the bedrock of this country's education system and where all of Bush's educational agendas are focused. The other half is going to grants to states because simply put state spending died when the economy went bust... the money has to come from somewhere... Bush isn't funding his No Child Left Behind initiative. Also, and this is a sore point with every educator I have ever talked to: the federal budget for education is around 60 B now. The war in Iraq, via special appropriations will likely be more than 65 B in a few weeks).
I'm an educator and you haven't asked me about it.
No Child Left Behind is most hated because many states and schools had no, repeat NO means of measuring the progress of their children. The reasons behind that is many school disticts don't want their progress measured.
Let me say that in most instances, it is still very easy to get a decent education in this country today. If there is a flacky teacher, parents who are advocates for their children, or children who genuinely care about their education find away to avoid the bad apples. The reality is that educationally, most people don't care. They want the quality of education to be like the quality of food they eat. Fast, high in calories, and cheap. The food makes us obese, and the same attitude toward education makes you dumb.
Now I can understand the mentality of some of these teachers with regard to testing. I mean if we had a national standardized fitness test and judged how good or bad the doctors or hospitals were based on how everyone did, we would see medical care in this country as overpriced and f*cked up because most people eat gross and sit on their a$$. So I understand why most teachers feel the same way when it is testing and students.
So most districts just try to help the students and avoid measuring the failure that is occuring when the three legged stool (parents, teachers, and students) becomes a one legged stool (teachers) and we are amazed that anyone trying to sit on it fails. (falls on their a$$)
NCLB makes it so they have to measure their progress. It also makes it possible to be penalized if they don't show improvement. We've had the equivelent of NCLB here in California for years before Bush was even in office. So I've watched the same rhetoric directed at different people including Gray Davis who was a big testing advocate.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm an educator and you haven't asked me about it.
No Child Left Behind is most hated because many states and schools had no, repeat NO means of measuring the progress of their children. The reasons behind that is many school disticts don't want their progress measured.
I'm pretty familiar with the topic of educational inequity. What I'm generally hearing is not that schools are so entrenched that they refuse to measure students' progress-- but that NCLB leaves the state and the local school district with essentially an unfunded mandate to do so. Again, the cost burden seems to be the main criticism.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I'm pretty familiar with the topic of educational inequity. What I'm generally hearing is not that schools are so entrenched that they refuse to measure students' progress-- but that NCLB leaves the state and the local school district with essentially an unfunded mandate to do so. Again, the cost burden seems to be the main criticism.
Federal spending on education is huge. Bush easily covered the cost of testing in his educational spending increases, which were quite large.
The "unfunded" mandate relates to cries after the fact to "rememdy" the fact that some of these children are failing even after extensive spending and intervention. The reality is that neither Republicans or Democrats will blame the parents or the children for their own failures. The approach to the problem basically amounts to getting a bigger hammer which costs even more. The "even more" part is what is considered an "unfunded mandate."
Let me break it down in the simpliest manner.
You are a school principal. Your high school graduation rate is 75%. I give you 40% more money and through various programs, outreaches, afterschool programs, etc. you manage to convince 5% more students to graduate. When asked why the other 20% didn't graduate, you would say that they are even more needy, and need even more money than the 40% increase. Thus expecting them to graduate without providing even more money is an "unfunded mandate."
That is essentually what has happened be it a Republican or Democratic governor or president. The alternative is of course asking if those last 20% really care to graduate, are capable of doing the work on that level, etc. Both Republicans and Democrats favor free trade which means low skill jobs are leaving for overseas. That means EVERYONE has to suddenly be high skill or else they will be stuck at McJobs. But very few are willing to tackle whether everyone truly can be say an engineer, lawyer, or doctor to earn appropriate wages. We say everyone will have a world class education.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
Umm...no. You haven't demonstrated cause for your positions.
My positions aren't on trial here -- it is fairly certain as well that since I have stated my positions and they ARE based upon policies by this administration, my positions have cause. And of note is that you or anybody else on these forums haven't had there positions on trial, so why start with mine?
My point with money for war or money for education is simple, if the government were to invest money that is being wasted on this war for education, we may be able to rebuild a few thousand inner city schools, pay teachers a whole lot more and invest in studies that track what changes can be done to improve education rather than a lot of hot air dialogue being passed between purported experts.
On the note of nationalized testing: In principle it is a good thing. In practice, and this is where I disagree with both parties, there need to be local, regional, then national standards. A population of students in rural SC are not going to be equipped to reach a national standard that is set based upon some sort of moving (improving?) average. There is 1) no basis for this level of education in the community, 2) a local tradition of leaving school to work, and 3) few to no teachers willing to work there. Education is the one thing I don't think the government should screw around with unless they know that their program will show an improvement and NCLB and school choice have so far either provided no means for improvement or by helping the few lucky ones screwed the rest.
My mother is an educator at the primary/secondary and post-secondary level. My father is one at the medical school/residency level. I have grown up with education theory floating in my household and have seen first hand the simultaneous animosity and arbitrarily cruel success of the magnet schools i attended. I got a great education, but at what cost to the students at my home school who didn't have the devoted teachers, and whose student body had the top 20% skimmed off by my high school? This is not simply a matter of 'oh look how lucky i am, i hate myself;' i honestly think that the magnet programs i attended were stop gap measures in a school system that is obviously failing. This has been the way of the us education system for 50 years almost -- help along the few that will probably be successful; screw the rest.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I will not support Bush no matter what he does. I have laid out specific things I disagree with him on. I have also talked about what I think he could have done better. Overall, I support both him and his policies. Deal with it.
The worst President? There is absolutely no basis for that statement. Though we can disagree about policy, Bush has gotten most of his 1st term agenda passed, which is quite an accomplishment to say the least. If you're going to make a statement like that, you must back it up. What are your criteria? I understand you disagree about invading Iraq. That doesn't make Bush a "bad President". Are the only good Presidents ones whom you agree with? What's the standard, jimmac? If you want to talk about Presidential fuck ups, let's talk about Clinton and nationalized health care, Carter and the hostage rescue, Nixon and watergate, Johnson and Vietnam, and Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. Let's talk about Truman cozying up to "Uncle Joe". Were they all bad Presidents too? Who was a good President, jimmac?
As for your ridiculous FALSE DILEMMA debate tactic regarding "he lied or was incompetent, well...it's just laughable. There are many other possibilites. The weapons may not have existed, but that doesn't mean either of your "choices" is accurate. The weapons could have been moved to Syria. The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. Who the hell knows. There are too many possibilities. We already know our intelligence was seriously flawed. Let me ask you: If the Pentagon and CIA showed Bush convincing evidence that Saddam had WMD (and that he had used them), and that intelligence proved inaccurate or mostly inaccurate, how is that Bush's personal responsility? Or, are you saying that *any moron* ccould have seen the difference? Really...that can't be your position, can it?
Who was a good president? Well Kennedy, Carter ( in his way ), Hell even Nixon ( only Nixon could go to China ) in his way even though in the end he turned out to be a crook, Clinton ( although he made some mistakes he was neither incompetent or a liar about life and death ).
There have been many good presidents. All of them human and they made some mistakes. Bush however doesn't care what happens to us that's clear. He has another agenda and we're just cannon fodder.
I asked you not to pass the blame and there you go again true to form. None of the other presidents on my short list tried to blame other's for their short commings ( that's something else I don't like about Bush ). If the Pentagon or the CIA or whoever showed Bush evidence he chose to ignore the many other people who were telling him this just wasn't so ( this includes the inspectors in Iraq ).
Nope, I'm sorry but your arguments just don't deflect the blame or reflect reality.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" The weapons, honestly, could still be found. I'm even willing to consider that we HAVE found the weapons and haven't released the info to the public. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please! You mean just in time for the election?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Where are the WMD? I don't know, do you? I have the same questions about it you do. I just don't automatically assume that Bush lied just because we haven't found them.
"The next best thing". You can't honestly believe that. I can understand strong disagreement with policy, but this level of hatred is unreasonable. I can even understand not liking his personality, manner, etc. But "next best thing as a leader to satan?". Wow.
It's quite amusing, really, because while you have an unbelievable problem with Bush, you haven't been able to examine and articulate exactly which policies you think are flawed, why they are flawed, and what negative effect they've had on the country. You can't do so on the economy. You can't do so with regard to terrorism. You can't do so on the environment. There are policies I disagree with Bush on as well, or think haven't turned out well (such as the No Child Left Behind Act), but the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to discuss each one, it's direct effect, and what I think could have been done better or needs to be changed.
I've also not heard a single good reason why one would support John Kerry over George Bush. Kerry's not going to pull the troops out of Iraq. He's not going to cut your taxes. He's not going to "save" the environment. He's not going raise military pay or increase education spending more than the 39% it's already going up. He's not going to magically make the Arab world love the US. He won't cut the deficit, because...wait for it...he's a tax and spend liberal of the proudest Mass. traditon. He's on every side of every issue, is WAY richer than Bush's whole family combined, and looks like the old He-Man character "Skeletor" on a bad hair day. Explain to me how he'd be better than Bush?
No Kerry won't solve all of these problems in either one or two terms. No one could. It's that bad!
What he will do is not create or make these problems worse.
And quite possibly improve the situations. Bush really has fvked things up for whoever comes next.
We're stuck with many examples of Bush's legacy. Iraq being one of them. We just can't pull out right now. We made the mess and now we have a responsability to fix it.
Also I really don't give a rip what Kerry looks like or how much money he has. You're getting desperate with that one.