|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 64 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 25 of 64:
| 
Nov 17 13:58 UTC 2003 |
Re #19: That's easy to do, because huge parts of the American
populace (both left and right) DO NOT THINK. Instead they react
to trigger words and phrases. Proper use of those triggers can
get them behind a policy even if the policy makes no sense.
(The Bush tax cuts made no sense, for example.) Failing to use
the trigger words (e.g. asking for critical thinking on any
of the questionable points) get you ignored.
I just wish I didn't have to get the government they deserve.
|
klg
|
|
response 26 of 64:
|
Nov 17 14:50 UTC 2003 |
Beware of 20th century thinking in the 21st century.
|
twenex
|
|
response 27 of 64:
|
Nov 17 15:36 UTC 2003 |
Re 25 and 26: Amen to that.
|
bru
|
|
response 28 of 64:
|
Nov 17 16:40 UTC 2003 |
anything that reduces any tax is a good thing.
You would love my tax cuts. 10% reduction in force in all departments except,
Military, law enforcement, schools, and Nasa.
|
twenex
|
|
response 29 of 64:
|
Nov 17 18:01 UTC 2003 |
Who is "you", exactly? What actual purpose does Nasa serve, in your opinion?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 64:
|
Nov 17 18:17 UTC 2003 |
Taxes serve to support functions that can be more economically done by
a government group than can be done by individuals. These include many
more functions than bru named. Whether these functions need more or less
funding at this time is not usefully discussed by declarations of "10%
reduction in force in all departments except...".
|
remmers
|
|
response 31 of 64:
|
Nov 17 18:25 UTC 2003 |
(Does anyone besides me think than the first and second
paragraphs of #28 contradict each other?)
|
twenex
|
|
response 32 of 64:
|
Nov 17 18:29 UTC 2003 |
Re: 31 - sorry, but no. The argument is simply over where the line can be
drawn between cutting tax to fund x and not cutting tax to fund y. OTOH, I'm
not sure I agree with bru's methods, either.
|
gull
|
|
response 33 of 64:
|
Nov 17 19:29 UTC 2003 |
Re #29: I think his budget allocation can be summed up as, "schools, and
departments that make or use things that go boom." ;>
|
klg
|
|
response 34 of 64:
|
Nov 18 02:16 UTC 2003 |
Is it not the case that privately financed schools are oftentimes
provided much more economically than is done by the government, Mr.
rcurl??
|
happyboy
|
|
response 35 of 64:
|
Nov 18 02:32 UTC 2003 |
"anything that reduces any tax is a good thing"
shut up, dummy.
|
bru
|
|
response 36 of 64:
|
Nov 18 04:02 UTC 2003 |
we made things go "boom" in school...
"Where's the Ka-boom? There is supposed to be an earth shattering Ka-boom!
Marvin the Martian
"There is Always a Ka-boom."
Lt. Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
I LIKE KA-boom!
|
tsty
|
|
response 37 of 64:
|
Nov 18 06:07 UTC 2003 |
re #13 .. tod ... that didn't ruin the item , it gave it content and
perspective. taht the fscking gummint is eviscerating the va is the
worst crime imaginanable, imnsho. however ... the evisceration did
not start in a republican congress. that it contunues in one is a feature
of the crass political tradeoff to get elected/reelected by abdicating
teh obligations of office.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 64:
|
Nov 18 06:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #34: I don't know what your assertion means. Please provide some data.
|
russ
|
|
response 39 of 64:
|
Nov 18 13:56 UTC 2003 |
Re #34: Private schools can refuse to serve anyone who would cost too
much. Public schools have no such option (though perhaps they should;
IMHO the blank check written to Special Ed is pure insanity).
|
klg
|
|
response 40 of 64:
|
Nov 18 17:53 UTC 2003 |
Surely, Mr. rcurl, you have had experience with inner city students who
attended parochial schools (where teachers salaries are very low) vs.
those who attended public schools (where salaries - and administrative
costs - are very high). Which students are more prepared for
university studies?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 64:
|
Nov 18 19:17 UTC 2003 |
Parochial schools don't keep the "difficult" students - public schools
must.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 64:
|
Nov 18 23:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 43 of 64:
|
Nov 18 23:49 UTC 2003 |
re #41: While Russ's earlier comment that "Private schools can refuse
to serve anyone who would cost too much," is true, "can" is an
important qualifying word in my experience. Rane's unqualified claim
that "Parochial schools don't keep the 'difficult' students - public
schools must," flatly contradicts my experience with the public and
parochial schools in where I grew up in west Michigan.
I knew several kids who wound up at the Catholic high school I attended
not because their parents wanted to send them for religious education
(in the cases I'm thinking of their families weren't even Catholic)
but because they'd been strongly encouraged to send their kids elsewhere
by the administrators of the public school district I lived in.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 44 of 64:
|
Nov 19 02:05 UTC 2003 |
yeah...and how old are you?
|
klg
|
|
response 45 of 64:
|
Nov 19 02:58 UTC 2003 |
(Please notice how Mr. rcurl avoids responding to a direct question.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 64:
|
Nov 19 06:42 UTC 2003 |
That's your usual trick, klg - but what is this direction question you
say I avoid?
|
tsty
|
|
response 47 of 64:
|
Nov 19 16:52 UTC 2003 |
one, just one single disruptive student in a class of 20-30 destroys
teh educational progress of teh rest. taht disrupter has to go elsewhere.
public school would be an intersting place .. but even there teh
disrupter eeds to be separated from teh achievers.
forcing 20-30 achievers to submit to disruption is a failure of
school ADMINSTRATIN leadership.
|
twenex
|
|
response 48 of 64:
|
Nov 19 17:04 UTC 2003 |
43: This is happening now in England. People send their kids to school even
if they aren't C of E (Anglican), or even religious, because the C of E
Voluntary Aided schools get a lot of money, and have more freedom to spend
money where they want to spend it, instead of where central government
mandates they must.
|
klg
|
|
response 49 of 64:
|
Nov 19 17:59 UTC 2003 |
Mr. rcurl:
(Here, again, is the direct question. Please be sure you are wearing
your eyeglasses this time.)
#40 of 48 by klg (klg) on Tue Nov 18 12:53:59 2003:
Surely, Mr. rcurl, you have had experience with inner city students who
attended parochial schools (where teachers salaries are very low) vs.
those who attended public schools (where salaries - and administrative
costs - are very high). Which students are more prepared for
university studies?
re: "#47 (tsty): one, just one single disruptive student in a class of
20-30 destroys teh educational progress of teh rest. taht disrupter has
to go elsewhere. . . forcing 20-30 achievers to submit to disruption is
a failure of school ADMINSTRATIN leadership."
Precisely, Mr. tsty!! Although the failure may have more to do with
government in general than with the school administration in
particular. The public schools may be reacting, in part, to the
intrusion from other branches of the government.
|