>>I don't think it's directness that caused the reaction. I >>think it's your general (and pardon my directness in >>saying so) strategy (conscious or unconscious) of >>responding to an argument with various rants on unrelated >>topics, while never quite addressing the question.
It is a subconscious thing. When I talk to people, like many others, you can go wandering off on tangents. I don't want to argue with anyone...just lookin' for `healthy debate`.
>>No-one has made any disparaging remarks about Laura Bush, >>because the left media on the whole is just not that mean.
Well...not yet. On the subject of being "just not that mean" what was the intention of the writer who suggested Mr Bush could be dyslexic? Was she just trying to be ironic?
>>Just not performing? What does that mean? That they did >>poorly on meaningless standardized tests? That you >>compared the students who were in those schools with
>>their identical twins who stayed home and saw no real >>difference?
Truthfully, I don't know the criteria of the tests. Is the phrase "doing poorly on meaningless standardized tests" the Gore-esque comeback to the Bush-ian soundbite "the schools were not performing"? So at the end of the day, neither side does anything by way of changing the teaching standards of Texas, the same phrases keep being repeated.
To deviate, as great as the country of America might be, there still is an inherant smalltown mentality that shies away from the thought of a national curriculum (and a national health service for that matter) If the good people of NYC and LA want the standards of education raised, why not take it off the hands of the Democrats - and if the good people of the heartlands want a good education sytem take it out of the hands of the Republicans to build a national cross-party body that will build the framework to allow a child to have the same standard of education across all 52 states.
>>The schools which tend to close are those that are in poor >>neighborhoods, which often happen to be "racial" >>neighborhoods. Generally, those schools are given far less >>funding.
So what? The school systems are run by company-men who pressure the staff, don't pay them well and then wonder why the public wonders why inner-city schools go to the dogs. If standards are dropping with *some* of the teachers - why don't you just take the case of the money you think the schools `deserve`, find a pot hole and throw all the money down there.
>>Ashcroft can say whatever he wants in DC, just like >>"certain Muslims." But "certain Muslims" are not being >>appointed to insanely powerful posts like Attorney >>General.
But with a gridlocked House, what's going to happen? Or will he start passing Clinton-esque `executive orders` and start getting up to all kinds of merriment.
As to certain Muslims my concern comes from the fact that they are defeating their own cause and are troublemakers. (Probably not disimilar to myself!) Doesn't it strike you as dangerous that the people who actually need assistance are only given more militancy and a victim-complex?
Of course they have reason to be angry - but these `leaders` seem to only drive them away from people who try and help them and just keeping digging up the old wounds and divisive rhetoric. It then won't matter how many "people of color" are in the Whitehouse - they'll all be out on the street, angry as hell ready to deliver Farrakhan's dream of inverted apartheid. Never mind the `right wing` - my feeling is that they won't take too kindly to the white-liberals who patronized them...
>>So then, will you finally admit that the conpiracy thought >>behind the supposed "liberal media" is an endorsement of >>ignorance? That many right-wing folks ignore anything they
>>don't like in the media by attributing it to >>conpiracy-based "liberal bias"?
I think I'll reach that point when portions of the left twig on that we aren't living under the Third Reich, and I know that I'll fully cross the line when Christian students are no longer bullied from praying at ball-games and facists of *ALL* color's and religions are kept from the "oxygen of the media".
That sentiment is far less combative than it reads the first 7 times, but I think you can see through the rant to what I'm saying. We're on two sides of a coin, so the best we can hope for is a comprehension of what's happening on "the other side".
Peace,
Richard
guess who...
R
richard
(view)
>>I don't think it's directness that caused the reaction. I >>think it's your general (and pardon my directness in >>saying so) strategy (conscious or unconscious) of >>responding to an argument with various rants on unrelated >>topics, while never quite addressing the question.
It is a subconscious thing. When I talk to people, like many others, you can go wandering off on tangents. I don't want to argue with anyone...just lookin' for `healthy debate`.
>>No-one has made any disparaging remarks about Laura Bush, >>because the left media on the whole is just not that mean.
Well...not yet. On the subject of being "just not that mean" what was the intention of the writer who suggested Mr Bush could be dyslexic? Was she just trying to be ironic?
>>Just not performing? What does that mean? That they did >>poorly on meaningless standardized tests? That you >>compared the students who were in those schools with
>>their identical twins who stayed home and saw no real >>difference?
Truthfully, I don't know the criteria of the tests. Is the phrase "doing poorly on meaningless standardized tests" the Gore-esque comeback to the Bush-ian soundbite "the schools were not performing"? So at the end of the day, neither side does anything by way of changing the teaching standards of Texas, the same phrases keep being repeated.
To deviate, as great as the country of America might be, there still is an inherant smalltown mentality that shies away from the thought of a national curriculum (and a national health service for that matter) If the good people of NYC and LA want the standards of education raised, why not take it off the hands of the Democrats - and if the good people of the heartlands want a good education sytem take it out of the hands of the Republicans to build a national cross-party body that will build the framework to allow a child to have the same standard of education across all 52 states.
>>The schools which tend to close are those that are in poor >>neighborhoods, which often happen to be "racial" >>neighborhoods. Generally, those schools are given far less >>funding.
So what? The school systems are run by company-men who pressure the staff, don't pay them well and then wonder why the public wonders why inner-city schools go to the dogs. If standards are dropping with *some* of the teachers - why don't you just take the case of the money you think the schools `deserve`, find a pot hole and throw all the money down there.
>>Ashcroft can say whatever he wants in DC, just like >>"certain Muslims." But "certain Muslims" are not being >>appointed to insanely powerful posts like Attorney >>General.
But with a gridlocked House, what's going to happen? Or will he start passing Clinton-esque `executive orders` and start getting up to all kinds of merriment.
As to certain Muslims my concern comes from the fact that they are defeating their own cause and are troublemakers. (Probably not disimilar to myself!) Doesn't it strike you as dangerous that the people who actually need assistance are only given more militancy and a victim-complex?
Of course they have reason to be angry - but these `leaders` seem to only drive them away from people who try and help them and just keeping digging up the old wounds and divisive rhetoric. It then won't matter how many "people of color" are in the Whitehouse - they'll all be out on the street, angry as hell ready to deliver Farrakhan's dream of inverted apartheid. Never mind the `right wing` - my feeling is that they won't take too kindly to the white-liberals who patronized them...
>>So then, will you finally admit that the conpiracy thought >>behind the supposed "liberal media" is an endorsement of >>ignorance? That many right-wing folks ignore anything they
>>don't like in the media by attributing it to >>conpiracy-based "liberal bias"?
I think I'll reach that point when portions of the left twig on that we aren't living under the Third Reich, and I know that I'll fully cross the line when Christian students are no longer bullied from praying at ball-games and facists of *ALL* color's and religions are kept from the "oxygen of the media".
That sentiment is far less combative than it reads the first 7 times, but I think you can see through the rant to what I'm saying. We're on two sides of a coin, so the best we can hope for is a comprehension of what's happening on "the other side".
Peace,
Richard
It is a subconscious thing. When I talk to people, like many others, you can go wandering off on tangents. I don't want to argue with anyone...just lookin' for `healthy debate`.
>>No-one has made any disparaging remarks about Laura Bush, >>because the left media on the whole is just not that mean.
Well...not yet. On the subject of being "just not that mean" what was the intention of the writer who suggested Mr Bush could be dyslexic? Was she just trying to be ironic?
>>Just not performing? What does that mean? That they did >>poorly on meaningless standardized tests? That you >>compared the students who were in those schools with
>>their identical twins who stayed home and saw no real >>difference?
Truthfully, I don't know the criteria of the tests. Is the phrase "doing poorly on meaningless standardized tests" the Gore-esque comeback to the Bush-ian soundbite "the schools were not performing"? So at the end of the day, neither side does anything by way of changing the teaching standards of Texas, the same phrases keep being repeated.
To deviate, as great as the country of America might be, there still is an inherant smalltown mentality that shies away from the thought of a national curriculum (and a national health service for that matter) If the good people of NYC and LA want the standards of education raised, why not take it off the hands of the Democrats - and if the good people of the heartlands want a good education sytem take it out of the hands of the Republicans to build a national cross-party body that will build the framework to allow a child to have the same standard of education across all 52 states.
>>The schools which tend to close are those that are in poor >>neighborhoods, which often happen to be "racial" >>neighborhoods. Generally, those schools are given far less >>funding.
So what? The school systems are run by company-men who pressure the staff, don't pay them well and then wonder why the public wonders why inner-city schools go to the dogs. If standards are dropping with *some* of the teachers - why don't you just take the case of the money you think the schools `deserve`, find a pot hole and throw all the money down there.
>>Ashcroft can say whatever he wants in DC, just like >>"certain Muslims." But "certain Muslims" are not being >>appointed to insanely powerful posts like Attorney >>General.
But with a gridlocked House, what's going to happen? Or will he start passing Clinton-esque `executive orders` and start getting up to all kinds of merriment.
As to certain Muslims my concern comes from the fact that they are defeating their own cause and are troublemakers. (Probably not disimilar to myself!) Doesn't it strike you as dangerous that the people who actually need assistance are only given more militancy and a victim-complex?
Of course they have reason to be angry - but these `leaders` seem to only drive them away from people who try and help them and just keeping digging up the old wounds and divisive rhetoric. It then won't matter how many "people of color" are in the Whitehouse - they'll all be out on the street, angry as hell ready to deliver Farrakhan's dream of inverted apartheid. Never mind the `right wing` - my feeling is that they won't take too kindly to the white-liberals who patronized them...
>>So then, will you finally admit that the conpiracy thought >>behind the supposed "liberal media" is an endorsement of >>ignorance? That many right-wing folks ignore anything they
>>don't like in the media by attributing it to >>conpiracy-based "liberal bias"?
I think I'll reach that point when portions of the left twig on that we aren't living under the Third Reich, and I know that I'll fully cross the line when Christian students are no longer bullied from praying at ball-games and facists of *ALL* color's and religions are kept from the "oxygen of the media".
That sentiment is far less combative than it reads the first 7 times, but I think you can see through the rant to what I'm saying. We're on two sides of a coin, so the best we can hope for is a comprehension of what's happening on "the other side".
Peace,
Richard
