kallend 2,184 #151 January 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteCarefully explain how taxpayer funded education is good, but taxpayer funded healthcare is not. I mean, besides that you benefitted from taxpayer funded education. Ah, now we've gone from welfare to socialized medicine? Another strawman? Sorry, Professor...I'm not going to defend your point for you. Come up with your own argument.\ On the subject of strawmen, where exactly did I defend WELFARE?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #152 January 26, 2008 Warped, yes, that was to whom I was responding...not you."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #153 January 26, 2008 Quote17 killed in bomb attacks last Wednesday. You DO know that Bush's claims of Iraqi WMDs and AQ links were liesfalsehoods, don't you? Anyone who now believes the Iraq adventure protects the US from terrorism has to be short a few marbles. I would say the bolded above shows your claim to be false. No WMD's? What *was* Bubba Jeff bombing back in '98, then??? Quote Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." ABC: Quote"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq" A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio. The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states. (Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein. It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor. The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting -- on November 13, 1995 -- terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #154 January 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteCarefully explain how taxpayer funded education is good, but taxpayer funded healthcare is not. I mean, besides that you benefitted from taxpayer funded education. Ah, now we've gone from welfare to socialized medicine? Another strawman? Sorry, Professor...I'm not going to defend your point for you. Come up with your own argument.\ On the subject of strawmen, where exactly did I defend WELFARE? He squirms, he wiggles... but he still doesn't answer the question... how (un)surprising...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #155 January 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCarefully explain how taxpayer funded education is good, but taxpayer funded healthcare is not. I mean, besides that you benefitted from taxpayer funded education. Ah, now we've gone from welfare to socialized medicine? Another strawman? Sorry, Professor...I'm not going to defend your point for you. Come up with your own argument.\ On the subject of strawmen, where exactly did I defend WELFARE? He squirms, he wiggles... but he still doesn't answer the question... how (un)surprising... Why should I answer your strawman question? Just like in desparation you used Jamaica's crime rate to make the USA look good, so you now fabricate a position I've not taken to make your (non-existent) point. PS are you still telling us how you know more about the economics of tax cuts than Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the president's council of economic advisors, the OMB, CBO...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #156 January 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDefine "enough taxation" Revenue = expenditures is quite enough. (expenditures include debt service) So you have no problem reducing spending instead of increasing taxes? Correct - $Trillion on a war based on lies that benefits no-one except the Bush-Buddies is a good place to start saving. But those who support the war should damn well pay for it. And those who support the bloated social programs should pay for them."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #157 January 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Ah, so you want to benefit from keeping terrorism off our shores, but don't want to pay for it? Imagine that... Lame. All the evidence suggests that Bush's war has been a successful recruiting drive for terrorists. All the evidence? I await your proof!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #158 January 26, 2008 Quote Carefully explain how taxpayer funded education is good, but taxpayer funded healthcare is not. I mean, besides that you benefitted from taxpayer funded education. HHmmm, let see, cant respond to the last post so what does kallend do??? Change direction!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #159 January 26, 2008 Quote Quote Ah, so you want to benefit from keeping terrorism off our shores, but don't want to pay for it? Imagine that... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Lame. All the evidence suggests that Bush's war has been a successful recruiting drive for terrorists. And they're springing up like weeds now in Iraq, aren't they? I think that they are starting to get the picture. 17 killed in bomb attacks last Wednesday. You DO know that Bush's claims of Iraqi WMDs and AQ links were liesfalsehoods, don't you? Anyone who now believes the Iraq adventure protects the US from terrorism has to be short a few marbles. Do YOU want to return to the list of those saying the same BEFORE Bush was even running for Pres?? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #160 January 27, 2008 More crap from the Clinton haters. But perhaps another reason why we don't need another Bill & Hills co-presidency. Can you say O-ba-ma ????? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #161 January 27, 2008 >And those who support the bloated social programs should pay for them. Do you drive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #162 January 27, 2008 Quote More crap from the Clinton haters. But perhaps another reason why we don't need another Bill & Hills co-presidency. Can you say O-ba-ma ????? If that does happen I don't think he will make it through a term in office..The Reich Wing militias will have a recruiting hey day...and The Riech Wing will come out in a big way for some assassination action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #163 January 27, 2008 QuoteThe Reich WingI think that this one is new. Thanks for some new stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #164 January 27, 2008 Quote >And those who support the bloated social programs should pay for them. Do you drive? Yes do you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #165 January 28, 2008 Washinton Post 1/28/2008 William M. Arkin Don't Open a Third Front in Pakistan U.S. intelligence and national security officials now readily admit that al Qaeda is back, and that it together with a growing fundamental Taliban movement is flourishing in parts of Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. The simple explanation is that the growth is the result of the Iraq war and its drain on our resources, military and intellectual. The solution most favored inside and outside government in Washington is a shift in resources back to the original post 9/11 battlefield, and indeed we are already witnessing new deals being made with the government in Islamabad to bolster the counter-terror effort. If conventional wisdom takes hold that the Pakistan resurgence is purely the product of an ill-conceived Iraq war, we will not only set ourselves on a faulty course for fighting in the future, but we will fail to understand the actual mistakes we have made in Iraq and Afghanistan, mistakes we could now repeat in Pakistan. Here is the crisis as it stands in South Asia: We have a central Afghan government facing deepening domestic instability and a Pakistan that threatens to descend into disorder. The al Qaeda organization is retooled and resurgent. Before the conclusion is drawn then that all that is needed is a Pakistani surge and a shift in resources back to the beginning, let's be honest about what happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq. First Afghanistan: In late 2001, with the Taliban government in Afghanistan surprisingly and easily defeated, and with al Qaeda on the run, Rumsfeld and company, and the U.S. military particularly in the form of Gen. Tommy Franks, came to the conclusion that the "military" mission was over. So delighted were they with dodging a Soviet-style quagmire and so impressed were they with their lightning military success, they truly believed that the mop up was both minor and easy. No one at the top of the military food chain then believed that there was a long war ahead, and if anyone thought that that "war" was going to need the full participation of the non-military side of American power, no one was clearly articulating it. These were the days when Donald Rumsfeld's description of American fighting a new kind of war focused on Special Forces riding on horseback using laptops to call in air strikes not democracy and other slogans that would later emerge. The bottom line was a poor assessment of the enemy and an error in understanding our own military achievement. The Iraq war loomed, the original 2003 war that is, imbued with the arrogance of the easy win in Afghanistan, hampered by the Rumsfeld leadership assumption of another quick in and out, and influenced by a continuing misunderstanding of the Iraqi mind. We might go on today that the Bush administration lied, that there were too few troops or that there was no plan for the peace, but the failure was that we didn't understand what happened in Afghanistan, and we continued to ignore that the "enemy" wasn't going to be vanquished at the barrel of a gun. In fact, quite the opposite: The more conventional military might we threw at Iraq and Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa and elsewhere -- the more forces we stuffed into the region in the Gulf states and the Caucasus - the more we activated latent forces of discontent and hatred. U.S. military forces now "occupy" a half dozen Muslim countries in the region, and I can't help but think what many see are uniforms of subjugation and killing. Influenced by our subsequent experience in Iraq, we see al Qaeda as some specific organized force to be found, fixed and defeated. Al Qaeda, of course, is not one thing, and its manifestation in Iraq is quite different than Pakistan, just as it is different in London or Madrid. This misunderstanding originally influenced our turning our back on Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, and in deferring to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to police his own country, even though we knew that those tribal border areas (and not Iraq) were the true wellspring of Islamic extremism. The danger of the U.S. military becoming more engaged in Pakistan now is not only that once again we are walking into a new country and a new culture that we don't understand, but also that we are leading with our military, thus connoting, no matter how modulated and sensitive that force will be, that we are on the path to yet another occupation, yet the other irony of our back to the future strategy to focus on Pakistan is also that militarily we will hardly commit the number of forces needed to make any short-term difference. The administration's increasingly public expressions of concern about Pakistan reflect intelligence reports of a gathering storm. Ultimately though, our best military strategy is getting out of the way and assisting Pakistan to deal with the problem. If Washington wants to put more resources into the fight, than bolster the U.S. presence at the border in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is not waiting in some trench line to fight us; they are waiting for us to blunder into yet another country so that they can once again scatter, while proving America's military crusade.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #166 January 28, 2008 I think we need mandatory education up to some certain level, and we need it to be taxpayer funded. My reason is because if it were voluntary (that is if you could opt out, including not paying the taxes to support it), way too many ignorant parents would do just that, with dire consequences for our future." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #167 January 29, 2008 QuoteI think we need mandatory education up to some certain level, and we need it to be taxpayer funded. My reason is because if it were voluntary (that is if you could opt out, including not paying the taxes to support it), way too many ignorant parents would do just that, with dire consequences for our future. That's what we have now, and it isn't working all that well. I'm all for a voucher system, where the parents can opt out of the taxes *IF* they're sending their child to some sort of private school. Educators would benefit, children would get better educations, and it might just send the NEA a message...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #168 January 29, 2008 QuoteI'm all for a voucher system, where the parents can opt out of the taxes *IF* they're sending their child to some sort of private school. ... "opt out"? they shouldn't opt out of the taxes, but those tax monies that are ASSIGNED to that specific child's education should go with the child to whatever school the parents choose that child - private institution or public right now, the public schools treat that money like it's their money and they are doing the kids a favor - instead of treating it like it's the student's money to spend on the best education they can find - that's the problem ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #169 January 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm all for a voucher system, where the parents can opt out of the taxes *IF* they're sending their child to some sort of private school. ... "opt out"? they shouldn't opt out of the taxes, but those tax monies that are ASSIGNED to that specific child's education should go with the child to whatever school the parents choose that child - private institution or public right now, the public schools treat that money like it's their money and they are doing the kids a favor - instead of treating it like it's the student's money to spend on the best education they can find - that's the problem I thought that was basically what the vouchers were - a sort of "pre-payment' to be used for a private school. Regardless, I agree with the gist of your post, and definitely the second half.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #170 January 29, 2008 yeah, gists are good ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #171 January 29, 2008 Quotethey shouldn't opt out of the taxes, but those tax monies that are ASSIGNED to that specific child's education should go with the child to whatever school the parents choose that child - private institution or public The supposed goal of vouchers is to make public schools compete for students. In reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. For the less rich, I wonder if the private prices will rise to take the extra money, making it a limited gain. The concept will only achieve the 'claimed' purpose if anyone can attend from a wide selection of private schools with no or limited cost to the parent. and rapid up/down changes in attendence will only worsen problems for public schools who can only contract so far due to fixed costs, and can only expand so quickly. I was on the site council for my high school while attendance for the 6 school district shrunk by 30% in my 4 years. That wrecked havoc on the budget every year. My school had 2000 students when I graduated; it had 4000 only a decade earlier. And mind you, this was one of the top rated public schools in California, with half my friends using fake addresses to attend. The shrinkage was all about the baby bust and a greying of the population in Orange County. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #172 January 29, 2008 QuoteThe supposed goal of vouchers is to make public schools compete for students. In reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. I seeeeeee,,,,,,, if you can't afford to send your kid to a private school - and that school is doing a horrible job of teaching him - you sure wouldn't want to have vouchers to be able to afford to send him somewhere better Your logic is truly amazing as for public schools not being able to handle the shrinkage 1 - good of you to acknowledge that students would be leaving some failing schools and the result would be shrinkage in enrollment - point in favor of vouchers 2 - true if the school is unwilling to adapt a model that accounts for natural competition - good of you to acknowledge that some failing public schools aren't flexible in their business practice, bloated in administration rather than mission - point in favor of vouchers etc etc ad nauseum (BTW - we are very fortunate in our daughter's public schools since she first started. I would bring my daughter's education money's straight to the public school she is currently enrolled in. That would be my CHOICE - if I had one.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #173 January 29, 2008 Do you advocate a voucher that would cover the entire cost of the private schooling? Every actual proposal I have seen makes the voucher essentially useless for a poor or lower middle class family since they still can't afford to make up the difference between the voucher value and the cost of a private school. The only beneficiaries would be people like me, for whom it would be a big taxpayer funded discount. But it's the GOP way to accept taxpayer funded largesse while whining about having to pay for services for the indigent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #174 January 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe supposed goal of vouchers is to make public schools compete for students. In reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. I seeeeeee,,,,,,, if you can't afford to send your kid to a private school - and that school is doing a horrible job of teaching him - you sure wouldn't want to have vouchers to be able to afford to send him somewhere better Your logic is truly amazing As is your inability to read more than two sentences in, and then to make up the rest. Seems less rational than usual for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #175 January 29, 2008 Quotethey still can't afford to make up the difference between the voucher value and the cost of a private school Is it possible private and affordable schools would spring up in response to the available market? Of course, you'd have to trust market forces (i.e., be a free market advocate). But you guys won't discuss anything except your perceived consequences of the short term effect only. gym analogy - you think the only private gyms are Lifetime Fitness with a million dollar joining fee and monthly fees of a billion dollars to use a public gym would have outdated machines, no free weights, and cardio would be shivering while waiting in line for the ab machine. you forget that because public gyms suck and the big gyms are ridiculous, that little guys like Snap Fitness are springing up everywhere with <$100 signup and $40/monthy fees why not expect the same to happen with education? Good teachers that are sick of the public schools would band together and startup private schools....etc etc etc ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rushmc 23 #158 January 26, 2008 Quote Carefully explain how taxpayer funded education is good, but taxpayer funded healthcare is not. I mean, besides that you benefitted from taxpayer funded education. HHmmm, let see, cant respond to the last post so what does kallend do??? Change direction!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #159 January 26, 2008 Quote Quote Ah, so you want to benefit from keeping terrorism off our shores, but don't want to pay for it? Imagine that... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Lame. All the evidence suggests that Bush's war has been a successful recruiting drive for terrorists. And they're springing up like weeds now in Iraq, aren't they? I think that they are starting to get the picture. 17 killed in bomb attacks last Wednesday. You DO know that Bush's claims of Iraqi WMDs and AQ links were liesfalsehoods, don't you? Anyone who now believes the Iraq adventure protects the US from terrorism has to be short a few marbles. Do YOU want to return to the list of those saying the same BEFORE Bush was even running for Pres?? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #160 January 27, 2008 More crap from the Clinton haters. But perhaps another reason why we don't need another Bill & Hills co-presidency. Can you say O-ba-ma ????? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #161 January 27, 2008 >And those who support the bloated social programs should pay for them. Do you drive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #162 January 27, 2008 Quote More crap from the Clinton haters. But perhaps another reason why we don't need another Bill & Hills co-presidency. Can you say O-ba-ma ????? If that does happen I don't think he will make it through a term in office..The Reich Wing militias will have a recruiting hey day...and The Riech Wing will come out in a big way for some assassination action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #163 January 27, 2008 QuoteThe Reich WingI think that this one is new. Thanks for some new stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #164 January 27, 2008 Quote >And those who support the bloated social programs should pay for them. Do you drive? Yes do you?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #165 January 28, 2008 Washinton Post 1/28/2008 William M. Arkin Don't Open a Third Front in Pakistan U.S. intelligence and national security officials now readily admit that al Qaeda is back, and that it together with a growing fundamental Taliban movement is flourishing in parts of Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. The simple explanation is that the growth is the result of the Iraq war and its drain on our resources, military and intellectual. The solution most favored inside and outside government in Washington is a shift in resources back to the original post 9/11 battlefield, and indeed we are already witnessing new deals being made with the government in Islamabad to bolster the counter-terror effort. If conventional wisdom takes hold that the Pakistan resurgence is purely the product of an ill-conceived Iraq war, we will not only set ourselves on a faulty course for fighting in the future, but we will fail to understand the actual mistakes we have made in Iraq and Afghanistan, mistakes we could now repeat in Pakistan. Here is the crisis as it stands in South Asia: We have a central Afghan government facing deepening domestic instability and a Pakistan that threatens to descend into disorder. The al Qaeda organization is retooled and resurgent. Before the conclusion is drawn then that all that is needed is a Pakistani surge and a shift in resources back to the beginning, let's be honest about what happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq. First Afghanistan: In late 2001, with the Taliban government in Afghanistan surprisingly and easily defeated, and with al Qaeda on the run, Rumsfeld and company, and the U.S. military particularly in the form of Gen. Tommy Franks, came to the conclusion that the "military" mission was over. So delighted were they with dodging a Soviet-style quagmire and so impressed were they with their lightning military success, they truly believed that the mop up was both minor and easy. No one at the top of the military food chain then believed that there was a long war ahead, and if anyone thought that that "war" was going to need the full participation of the non-military side of American power, no one was clearly articulating it. These were the days when Donald Rumsfeld's description of American fighting a new kind of war focused on Special Forces riding on horseback using laptops to call in air strikes not democracy and other slogans that would later emerge. The bottom line was a poor assessment of the enemy and an error in understanding our own military achievement. The Iraq war loomed, the original 2003 war that is, imbued with the arrogance of the easy win in Afghanistan, hampered by the Rumsfeld leadership assumption of another quick in and out, and influenced by a continuing misunderstanding of the Iraqi mind. We might go on today that the Bush administration lied, that there were too few troops or that there was no plan for the peace, but the failure was that we didn't understand what happened in Afghanistan, and we continued to ignore that the "enemy" wasn't going to be vanquished at the barrel of a gun. In fact, quite the opposite: The more conventional military might we threw at Iraq and Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa and elsewhere -- the more forces we stuffed into the region in the Gulf states and the Caucasus - the more we activated latent forces of discontent and hatred. U.S. military forces now "occupy" a half dozen Muslim countries in the region, and I can't help but think what many see are uniforms of subjugation and killing. Influenced by our subsequent experience in Iraq, we see al Qaeda as some specific organized force to be found, fixed and defeated. Al Qaeda, of course, is not one thing, and its manifestation in Iraq is quite different than Pakistan, just as it is different in London or Madrid. This misunderstanding originally influenced our turning our back on Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, and in deferring to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to police his own country, even though we knew that those tribal border areas (and not Iraq) were the true wellspring of Islamic extremism. The danger of the U.S. military becoming more engaged in Pakistan now is not only that once again we are walking into a new country and a new culture that we don't understand, but also that we are leading with our military, thus connoting, no matter how modulated and sensitive that force will be, that we are on the path to yet another occupation, yet the other irony of our back to the future strategy to focus on Pakistan is also that militarily we will hardly commit the number of forces needed to make any short-term difference. The administration's increasingly public expressions of concern about Pakistan reflect intelligence reports of a gathering storm. Ultimately though, our best military strategy is getting out of the way and assisting Pakistan to deal with the problem. If Washington wants to put more resources into the fight, than bolster the U.S. presence at the border in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is not waiting in some trench line to fight us; they are waiting for us to blunder into yet another country so that they can once again scatter, while proving America's military crusade.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #166 January 28, 2008 I think we need mandatory education up to some certain level, and we need it to be taxpayer funded. My reason is because if it were voluntary (that is if you could opt out, including not paying the taxes to support it), way too many ignorant parents would do just that, with dire consequences for our future." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #167 January 29, 2008 QuoteI think we need mandatory education up to some certain level, and we need it to be taxpayer funded. My reason is because if it were voluntary (that is if you could opt out, including not paying the taxes to support it), way too many ignorant parents would do just that, with dire consequences for our future. That's what we have now, and it isn't working all that well. I'm all for a voucher system, where the parents can opt out of the taxes *IF* they're sending their child to some sort of private school. Educators would benefit, children would get better educations, and it might just send the NEA a message...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #168 January 29, 2008 QuoteI'm all for a voucher system, where the parents can opt out of the taxes *IF* they're sending their child to some sort of private school. ... "opt out"? they shouldn't opt out of the taxes, but those tax monies that are ASSIGNED to that specific child's education should go with the child to whatever school the parents choose that child - private institution or public right now, the public schools treat that money like it's their money and they are doing the kids a favor - instead of treating it like it's the student's money to spend on the best education they can find - that's the problem ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #169 January 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm all for a voucher system, where the parents can opt out of the taxes *IF* they're sending their child to some sort of private school. ... "opt out"? they shouldn't opt out of the taxes, but those tax monies that are ASSIGNED to that specific child's education should go with the child to whatever school the parents choose that child - private institution or public right now, the public schools treat that money like it's their money and they are doing the kids a favor - instead of treating it like it's the student's money to spend on the best education they can find - that's the problem I thought that was basically what the vouchers were - a sort of "pre-payment' to be used for a private school. Regardless, I agree with the gist of your post, and definitely the second half.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #170 January 29, 2008 yeah, gists are good ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #171 January 29, 2008 Quotethey shouldn't opt out of the taxes, but those tax monies that are ASSIGNED to that specific child's education should go with the child to whatever school the parents choose that child - private institution or public The supposed goal of vouchers is to make public schools compete for students. In reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. A tax cut for the rich. For the less rich, I wonder if the private prices will rise to take the extra money, making it a limited gain. The concept will only achieve the 'claimed' purpose if anyone can attend from a wide selection of private schools with no or limited cost to the parent. and rapid up/down changes in attendence will only worsen problems for public schools who can only contract so far due to fixed costs, and can only expand so quickly. I was on the site council for my high school while attendance for the 6 school district shrunk by 30% in my 4 years. That wrecked havoc on the budget every year. My school had 2000 students when I graduated; it had 4000 only a decade earlier. And mind you, this was one of the top rated public schools in California, with half my friends using fake addresses to attend. The shrinkage was all about the baby bust and a greying of the population in Orange County. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #172 January 29, 2008 QuoteThe supposed goal of vouchers is to make public schools compete for students. In reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. I seeeeeee,,,,,,, if you can't afford to send your kid to a private school - and that school is doing a horrible job of teaching him - you sure wouldn't want to have vouchers to be able to afford to send him somewhere better Your logic is truly amazing as for public schools not being able to handle the shrinkage 1 - good of you to acknowledge that students would be leaving some failing schools and the result would be shrinkage in enrollment - point in favor of vouchers 2 - true if the school is unwilling to adapt a model that accounts for natural competition - good of you to acknowledge that some failing public schools aren't flexible in their business practice, bloated in administration rather than mission - point in favor of vouchers etc etc ad nauseum (BTW - we are very fortunate in our daughter's public schools since she first started. I would bring my daughter's education money's straight to the public school she is currently enrolled in. That would be my CHOICE - if I had one.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #173 January 29, 2008 Do you advocate a voucher that would cover the entire cost of the private schooling? Every actual proposal I have seen makes the voucher essentially useless for a poor or lower middle class family since they still can't afford to make up the difference between the voucher value and the cost of a private school. The only beneficiaries would be people like me, for whom it would be a big taxpayer funded discount. But it's the GOP way to accept taxpayer funded largesse while whining about having to pay for services for the indigent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #174 January 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe supposed goal of vouchers is to make public schools compete for students. In reality, it is basically a gift to those who currently already are opting for private school already. I seeeeeee,,,,,,, if you can't afford to send your kid to a private school - and that school is doing a horrible job of teaching him - you sure wouldn't want to have vouchers to be able to afford to send him somewhere better Your logic is truly amazing As is your inability to read more than two sentences in, and then to make up the rest. Seems less rational than usual for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #175 January 29, 2008 Quotethey still can't afford to make up the difference between the voucher value and the cost of a private school Is it possible private and affordable schools would spring up in response to the available market? Of course, you'd have to trust market forces (i.e., be a free market advocate). But you guys won't discuss anything except your perceived consequences of the short term effect only. gym analogy - you think the only private gyms are Lifetime Fitness with a million dollar joining fee and monthly fees of a billion dollars to use a public gym would have outdated machines, no free weights, and cardio would be shivering while waiting in line for the ab machine. you forget that because public gyms suck and the big gyms are ridiculous, that little guys like Snap Fitness are springing up everywhere with <$100 signup and $40/monthy fees why not expect the same to happen with education? Good teachers that are sick of the public schools would band together and startup private schools....etc etc etc ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
