Us presidential election 2004

[shinRaiden 0]

Amen to that. I nearly flunked kindy because the teacher said it was more important to color pictures of elephants shaped like the letter E than looking at books and learning to read, and I thought that was stupid, and was independently minded enough at 5 to ignore the teacher for nearly the entire year, and the teacher was dumb enough to never check my cubbyhole storage box.

In first-grade, I had an understanding teacher who was overwhelmed with the volume of class mediocraty, so she shipped me off to in-class accelerated study programs. One day I was reading a book and saw a picture of a maximum security prison with heavy doors and multiple floors, and thought how ironic it was that the elementry school building seemed to be laid out the same - plain '50s box, two story and open in the middle, etc. School sucked after that.

After first grade my teacher said that even if they stuck me in the elementry version of AP, that the program in the district wouldn't be able to handle me. (I had by this time subverted my dad's brand new 286 workstation and Mac 512ke.) So my mom pulled me out and took care of everything at home.

One other problem the public school system is facing that they're not being honest about imho is the so-called "Special ED" system. There's way too much money and too little oversight for it to be totally aboveboard. Here in Washington with a significant funding rearrangement from the legislature, the number of 'special' students exploded overnight, along with the staff headcount and departmental budgets of course, but I have yet to see reports saying that there is something in the water. Furthermore, how come only the kids are being affected, and not the parents? The kids weren't braindead before they went to school... well, there was one report of a little lead in the drinking fountain in one school, but a follow-up check was inconclusive.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Clinton showed that you can increase funding for schools, medicare, social security without creating a deficit and without taxing the hell out of everything that moves.

erm... with the help of Congress...

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is utterly irresponsible to be taking money from the public schools

There's nothing irresponsible here. You just take the $7000 being wasted on the public school education and let the student have it to help pay for what's left after scholarships to a private school. It should be the student's choice how he spends that $7000 on his education. That $7000 does not belong to the public school in his area, it is not the "school's money". It is the student's money, and it should be his choice where it goes.

It's not the students money. It is the governments' money allocated for providing the best possible education for all students. As the broad masses will go to public schools, it is the minimum level you have to guarantee works.

Secondly, private schools are looking to earn money - produce positive fiscal results, rather than the public schools that are revenue neutral. It doesn't make sense to have the government finance private businesses at the cost of the education. In a public school, the $7000 can be fully spent on education, while a private school will spend $5000 on the student, bagging the remaining $2000 as profit.

The point with the money is to provide education - not to make money for the owners and shareholders of private school businesses.

And third, you have to have some consistency across the schools you are paying for. You have to guarantee some basic level of quality. And assuring that costs a shitload of money. It's cheaper to have it within one organization than to investigate all schools where vouchers can be used.

Don't even let me get into the separation of church and state issues where tax money would be spent on religious indoctrination.

billybob:

Quote[/b] ]erm... with the help of Congress...

The point being that it is quite possible. If it was possible for Clinton, it is possible for Kerry. Bush has shown his results - larger deficit combined with a decrease in education, social security, medicare etc

Basically he has spent a shitload of your money and not given you anything in return. Not too impressive results, wouldn't you agree?

...

Well, I'm off to bed. Good to see the discussion switching to some other issues besides the Iraq war.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Secondly, private schools are looking to earn money - produce positive fiscal results, rather than the public schools that are revenue neutral. It doesn't make sense to have the government finance private businesses at the cost of the education. In a public school, the $7000 can be fully spent on education, while a private school will spend $5000 on the student, bagging the remaining $2000 as profit.

If private schools want profit, then they'll accept more students who can pay full tuition. After paying expenses, the private school will have used up the $7000 from a voucher student. Teacher's still need to be paid, regardless of how much money the student is paying. I go to a private school (A small, hippie, inner-city Massachusetts private school ), and I can tell you, the school spends more than $7000 on each student. Teachers, food, campus maintainance, and other expenses add up to the point that the school has to ask for donations and hope for volunteer work when it wants to do anything more than minor renovations. There's no profit motive to accepting kids coming in on big scholarships, except that accepting smart, really motivated kids and giving them a good education will hopefully guarantee donations far in the future.

Quote[/b] ]In a public school, the $7000 can be fully spent on education

On what the government defines as education. This definition includes teaching third-graders how to put condoms on bananas and zany ideas like "ethnomathematics" (I mentioned it in a previous post).

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]The point being that it is quite possible. If it was possible for Clinton, it is possible for Kerry. Bush has shown his results - larger deficit combined with a decrease in education, social security, medicare etc

Basically he has spent a shitload of your money and not given you anything in return. Not too impressive results, wouldn't you agree?

People will have to cross the aisle to crush the deficit/balance the budget. I have not seen or heard republicans and democrats joining together since the mid-90s to talk about balancing the budget. Kerry is not saying what cuts he is going to do because he wants to increase funding for a lot of programs. Erm.. Also, I do not "pay" taxes because I never worked a paying a job but I have worked before...

Quote[/b] ]FYI, Kerry/Edwards are for civil unions.

They may be "for" civil unions but they want the states to decide...

[Cpt. Bazikian-5thSFG- 0]

And you think Kerry would do better? If the elections were held yesterday and Kerry was elected as president then would he pull our troops out of Iraq imeadiately? No, most likely it'll be another year or 6 months until our troops can come home. And whats Kerry gonna do about N. Korea and Iran? Sit there with his thumb up his ass trying to figure out a peaceful solution..... While Washington, LA, Miami, New York, and Boston are being systemmaticly pulverized by North Korean or Iranian nuclear missiles? Whats the UN going to do? Is Mr. Annan going to launch his arsenal of weapons against the N. Koreans or Iranians? No, I don't think so. Kerry's foreign policy plans are so flaky right now that I fear him getting into office. First of all the US govenment IE: Congress shouldn't have anything to do with the UN. Why should we bend over and get screwed in the ass by an organization that we help found. First of all the UN today is a joke, they're not doing their job in the world and their inspectors get led on day in and day out. And don't forget that a president cannot declare war without congressional approval. So all this talk about Bush starting the war is bullshit. Congress approved the war, so all those against the war should go after the congressmen who decided to vote for it. In an extreme example the president could make-up a reason to go to war with France or Russia. But without congressional approval.... That doesn't mean diddily squat!

*EDIT* Oh and by the way the education system is screwed up here not becasue of the federal aspect IE: funding..... But becasue of the local and state burning of those funds by not teaching anything pratical, useful or even enriching to the childern that attend public school. So in other words, what is really needed is a reform on the state or local level of educational curiculum. Or perhaps a new Federal curiculum requrement for the states and localities to follow. If you think about it, are kids going to learn things that there is no reason to learn? Like what was the name of George Washington's horse? Who gives a damn lol. Who cares about his horse, what was george washington symbolic for and why was he a respected and chosen man to become president is what we should be teaching the kids.

[ralphwiggum 6]

a little help on vouchers.

simple economics. you give subsidies, price goes up. so in other words, the taxes paid will not be helping with private institution tuition payments. furthermore, public education is something called a 'public' good. by allowing more people to attend school, overall social productivity rises.

also on the tax bracket. yes, riches pay more, but they get around legally, so they are not paying as much as you think using tax bracket. for example, a trust fund has max tax bracket of 39%. if someone can afford to get a trust fund for his entire estate, say one million bucks, he doesn't have to pay 11% difference. there are other ways to get around the tax laws legally, that will help riches avoid paying higher taxes.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]If the elections were held yesterday and Kerry was elected as president then would he pull our troops out of Iraq imeadiately? No, most likely it'll be another year or 6 months until our troops can come home

Of course not, has he ever claimed that? Nixon promised to get troops home from Vietnam and it took about 3 years. Nothing happens at once.

Quote[/b] ]And whats Kerry gonna do about N. Korea and Iran? Sit there with his thumb up his ass trying to figure out a peaceful solution

So what is Bush doing about it? Tell me in detail please. The answer is: nothing but piss them off by putting them to axis of evil which has just accelerated their nuclear projects, regrettably. And they are ones that do/will have the arsenal, no powerpoint presentations needed to prove it to anybody.

Quote[/b] ]And whats Kerry gonna do about N. Korea and Iran? Sit there with his thumb up his ass trying to figure out a peaceful solution.

Somebody else has a thumb in his ass and the other on the nuke button even as we speak.

Quote[/b] ]But without congressional approval.... That doesn't mean diddily squat!

He made a case to congress for going to war based on faulty intelligence and a hunch. The congress believed him. So you trust the judgement of congressmen more than you trust the president and his adminstration who should know better than any of them? Well I supported the war but not based on those issues that were used blind the public.

Quote[/b] ]Why should we bend over and get screwed in the ass by an organization that we help found

UN: More inspections. We'll check if there are WMDs.

US: They are there! We know that! War!

---------

Result: no WMDs

Was it the UN that screwed you in the ass or did you just do it to yourself?

[Schoeler 0]

@ Oct. 06 2004,22:26)]And you think Kerry would do better?  

Frankly, yes I do.

Quote[/b] ]If the elections were held yesterday and Kerry was elected as president then would he pull our troops out of Iraq imeadiately?

Kerry has already said we are in it to win it.  He says troops might begin to be drawn down in 6 months but it will probably be another 4-5 years before we can pull out.  You really should research these things for yourself, instead of having your opinion given to you like the rest of the sheeple.  I had assumed you were smarter than that.  How sad.

Quote[/b] ]And whats Kerry gonna do about N. Korea and Iran? Sit there with his thumb up his ass trying to figure out a peaceful solution..... While Washington, LA, Miami, New York, and Boston are being systemmaticly pulverized by North Korean or Iranian nuclear missiles?

Again, you can look this up for yourself.  I can't hold your hand through life.  Be an adult and do the math.  The information is available from a variety of reputable sources and Kerry has said it several times in public himself including at the last debate.  Kerry wants to engage in bilateral talks with the North Koreans and let the IAEA into Iran under the threat of enhanced sanctions.  Bush won't hold bilateral talks because it is against his religious beliefs to negotiate with communists, and you can see, just where that sort of thinking has gotten us.

Oh by the way, you can look this up too.  North Korea doesn't have the missile range to hit the targets you mentioned.  In 2-3 years, they may have the ability to hit the west coast.

Quote[/b] ]Kerry's foreign policy plans are so flaky right now that I fear him getting into office.

As opposed to the President's?  At least Kerry can tell the truth about our foreign policy right now, instead of pumping sunshine and roses up our asses to win the election.  Bush is by far the more dangerous of the two.

Quote[/b] ]And don't forget that a president cannot declare war without congressional approval. So all this talk about Bush starting the war is bullshit. Congress approved the war, so all those against the war should go after the congressmen who decided to vote for it. In an extreme example the president could make-up a reason to go to war with France or Russia. But without congressional approval.... That doesn't mean diddily squat!

Oh boy, this one takes the grand prize for ignorance!  Someone hasn't been doing their schoolwork.  You should have learned by now that the President can go to war for 90 days without Congressional approval.  You can check it out for yourself, but you probably think the source has a liberal bias.

Quote[/b] ]  

The War Powers Act of 1973

Public Law 93-148

93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542

November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

This is freely available online from any government source and is in the Congressional record.  You could look it up, but that would mean thinking for yourself and we wouldn't want to do that.  It would mean all that carefully absorbed propaganda would come unraveled and you would have to admit to being brainwashed.

Quote[/b] ]*EDIT* Oh and by the way the education system is screwed up here not becasue of the federal aspect IE: funding..... But becasue of the local and state burning of those funds by not teaching anything pratical, useful or even enriching to the childern that attend public school. So in other words, what is really needed is a reform on the state or local level of educational curiculum. Or perhaps a new Federal curiculum requrement for the states and localities to follow. If you think about it, are kids going to learn things that there is no reason to learn? Like what was the name of George Washington's horse? Who gives a damn lol. Who cares about his horse, what was george washington symbolic for and why was he a respected and chosen man to become president is what we should be teaching the kids  

You are a classic example of the sad state of affairs in our educational system and the poster child for drastic reform.

[Cpt. Bazikian-5thSFG- 0]

And first of all we should have taken Saddam out of power in the first gulf war when he invaded Kuwait

[kerosene 0]

Guess you missed out on kerry quoting Bush. snr - "no viable exit strategy in a hostile country" was the gist of it.

If youre gonna start using hindsight you might as well say the U.S should never have propped up mental dictators and religous fanatics for their own convience.

[denoir 0]

It seems factcheck.org is very slow....damn you, Cheney!!!!

Actually...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3723090.stm

Quote[/b] ]

A slip of the tongue by Dick Cheney has given a boost to anti-Bush campaigners.

During a televised debate Mr Cheney told viewers to visit factcheck.com when answering accusations by vice presidential nominee John Edwards. But rather than being the address of a project to check the facts politicians use, the site merely hosts adverts. Soon after being mentioned, it began redirecting visitors to the website of billionaire George Soros, who is very critical of the Bush administration.

Site seeing

The opening page of the Soros website displays a banner headline reading: "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values."

Mr Cheney's slip was caused by him wrongly recalling the web address of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Center which lives at factcheck.org. The vice president mentioned Factcheck.com when Mr Edwards tackled him about his time as chief executive of oil services firm Halliburton, which has won a lot of government work in Iraq.

Defending himself Mr Cheney said his opponent was using Halliburton as a smokescreen and anyone wanting the proper facts should look on the web. More than 44 million people watched the televised debate between Mr Cheney and Mr Edwards.

Reports suggest that thousands turned to the web to find out for themselves. As traffic to the Factcheck.com ad site mushroomed, its owners decided to re-direct people to Georgesoros.com.

"This was to relieve stress on the service and to express a political point of view," said a spokesman for Factcheck.com.

At the busiest times more than 100 people per second were visiting Factcheck.com.

'Mostly right'

Soon after the re-directing started, Mr Soros' site posted a notice explaining that it did not own the Factcheck.com website and was not responsible for the diversion.

Mr Cheney could not even win support from the Factcheck.org website.

In a statement the site's editors said the vice president "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton."

"In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad," the statement said.

It concluded: "Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."

ouch

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Awesome story to read... but I cant open any of the two.  

(okay .org works)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually...

yahoo.com, yesterday, posted the correction on it's main page... and the site is very slow and I'm on cable...it used to be fast...

Quote[/b] ]ouch

At least the Libya thing was wrong...

Quote[/b] ]Bush won't hold bilateral talks because it is against his religious beliefs to negotiate with communists, and you can see, just where that sort of thinking has gotten us.

erm...China, North Korea's master, has said bilateral talks is not the best option..

Quote[/b] ]let the IAEA into Iran under the threat of enhanced sanctions.

erm.. I thought he wanted to give them fuel for a test and then sanctions... or did I hear him wrong...

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Actually...

yahoo.com, yesterday, posted the correction on it's main page... and the site is very slow and I'm on cable...it used to be fast...

how about CNN?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/debate.website.ap/index.html

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush won't hold bilateral talks because it is against his religious beliefs to negotiate with communists, and you can see, just where that sort of thinking has gotten us.

erm...China, North Korea's master, has said bilateral talks is not the best option..

erm, no, they didn't say exactly that. The President said that. Don't ever confuse what the President says with reality, the two are few and far between. Last thing I heard was that the Chinese were encouraging us to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea until very recently. Now they want a stake in the process for their own gain, not for our benefit.

Chinese Interests in North Korea

Quote[/b] ]Victor Cha, professor of international relations at Georgetown University, agrees that China is using the talks on North Korea to enhance its own diplomatic clout.

"We should not be under any illusions that China is in this for the good of mankind," he said. "They clearly want to capitalize on this issue to the extent that it enhances their own influence in the region." . . . . .

Part of this effort includes signing an agreement aimed at defusing longstanding territorial disputes over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea and negotiating a free trade agreement with ASEAN countries.

In fact, South Korea is encouraging a bilateral engagement.

South Koreans Believe Bilateral Talks May Work Better

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]how about CNN?

Still.. Damn you Cheney!!!!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]erm, no, they didn't say exactly that.  The President said that.

no sec....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3705948.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States, accustomed to giving advice on democracy, is in the unfamiliar position of getting some from international election observers schooled in Tajikistan, Ethiopia and other emerging democracies.

Two observer groups have been examining U.S. voting systems for compliance with international standards for free and fair elections.

The very idea disgusts some Republicans, who say it sends a message of weakness and compromises U.S. sovereignty. (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Some Democrats say the scrutiny is overdue.

Former President Carter, for one, has said some U.S. voting systems don't meet international standards "even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair." (Disabled hail e-voting despite doubts)

The observers already have found problems typical in countries with far less than 200 years of voting experience.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 55-state security group, said ballot secrecy is at risk because of the way some overseas ballots are being handled.

The Bush administration invited the OSCE observers as part of a standing agreement among member states.

David MacDonald, a Canadian member of a team organized by the San Francisco human rights group Global Exchange, said observers were shocked to find that partisan officials run U.S. elections.

[kerosene 0]

The South Koreans never even wanted Bush's tough guy policy in the first place, it went against their sunshine policy, i dont really see how anyone can call the situation now an improvement over when clinton handled it.

I wish Kerry could have asked why the group talks are preferable, If its in everyones interests to see nukes removed from Korea, why would the Chinese drop all diplomatic efforts and not take any initiative independantly of the U.S?

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]erm, no, they didn't say exactly that.  The President said that.

no sec....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3705948.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

While acknowledging that there "were some complicating factors and new difficulties" that hampered the talks, Mr Li stressed that "nothing is more precious than peace".

Yes Billybob, I read that article which is why I said "Last thing I heard was that the Chinese were encouraging us to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea until very recently."

Check the date on that quote you supplied, it was stated after the Bush-Kerry debate.  Basically, the Chinese have reversed their position out of fears they will lose their stake in the process under a Kerry administration.

You really should read everything you argue against, else you come off sounding like a boob.

[Blake 0]

@ Oct. 07 2004,14:55)]And first of all we should have taken Saddam out of power in the first gulf war when he invaded Kuwait  

At least you would have had enough of troops back then and a genuine coalition and uprisings against Saddam in northern and southern Iraq, but coalition would have probably cracked apart since arab partners would have been against it. Mandate was only about ejecting Iraqis from Kuwait. However it probably would have worked better then than today. Schwarzkopf was probably itching to finish the job for good but Colin Powell and Bush snr. were fiercly against it on the arguments that have proven horrendously true on the ground there today.

But they could have maybe won another UN mandate of regime-change in Iraq on basis of massacres and humanitarian disasters that Saddam's brutal suppressions of uprisings created. You wouldn't have needed to have any flimsy smokescreen evidence for that. Or else, even unilateral action would have had more grounds to that than today.

[kerosene 0]

Wasnt international opinion against fully kicking him out at the time?

[shinRaiden 0]

The S. Korean 'sunshine policy' has been fronted by S. Korean business interests who want to use the north as their little Mexico and to jump off into the China market because of the cozy relationship. Some of these guys have been indicted for getting ahead of the game on that as well.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Wasnt international opinion against fully kicking him out at the time?

Yes probably was but not nearly on a level it has been today.

And what goes for making the case for another UN mandate back then and invasion, things were still fresh:

- Invasion of Kuwait: plundering, murdering, raping and setting up oil wells on fire, environmental disasters caused by pumping oil deliberately to the Gulf

- Forced exodus and partial genocide of Kurds north and Shias in the south, summary executions and torture

- Shooting Scud missiles to Israel in effort to draw them to war and cause mayhem among civilian population

Added to that, the gas attacks against Kurds just three years back.