Senators Bash Bush Iraq Policy





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Senators Bash Bush Iraq Policy
By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit

In the past two days, several Senators weigh in about Bush's Iraq policy:

1. The President needs to level more with the American people.

2. I'm deeply, deeply troubled.

3. ...marked by incompetence

4. I will not vote for Bush in November, I may write in.

Democratic partisans? Hardly. All GOP and with significant expertise in foreign affairs: McCain, Hagel, Lugar, Chaffee.

The Emperor has no clothes. You can't fix a mistake until you admit you made one.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Thedad, I cannot believe your hypocrisy.

First, you attack and flame Fundingfather on the now defunct thread by accusing him of being nothing more than a cyber troll. Have you ever stopped to consider that Fundingfather is a college student, and would most likely not need to make posts on the other forums? have you ever stopped to consider that Fundingfather enjoys political debate like most of us here? Or are you still clinging to your tired old notions that anybody who posts ideas that are not inline with yours is a troll and nothing else.


Second of all, I'm seeing plenty of one-sided opinions coming from you: which might I add is precisely what you attack Fundingfather for doing. You gladly post topics bashing Bush such as this, while forgetting that there is always another side to the issue. Have you forgotten the Democrats who have decided to cast their vote for Bush in 2004?

In conclusion, get your Head on straight theDad.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 08:53 pm: Edit

I'm with you vancat. It's amazing that an adult would try to stop a healthy political debate. Not to mention go to the trouble he did to prove what is totally nonsense. Why do you have a problem with the airing of ideas you don't support, thedad? Shouldn't we get to hear all sides? Why did they close out the other thread? Does CC agree with thedad?

By Songman (Songman) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Hey no fair how come I cannot comment on the Kerry plans to win support from allies thread? Or is it my computer?

well anyway didn't Churchill say: Foreign countries do not have friends they have interests"?

IMHO there is only one way Kerry or any president can get allies to support us. PAY THEM OFF! This is what we have always done, then they cooperate. Bush was not interested in this form of bribery,plus he was trampling on their interests, so therefore they shunned him.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

thats cuz the moderators stopped the thread.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit

thedad...that is the hypocritical thing I've ever seen in my life.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:11 pm: Edit

FF is an adult, not a student. His one-sided opinions are one thing, those I can dispute, just as anyone can dispute mine.

My objection is to someone who has no investment in the CC community posting solely on political topics. I don't care with it's Bush, Kerry, pro-choice, pro-life, pro-NRA, anti-gun...whatever...someone from the outside coming in and hijacking the board for their own agenda isn't a good thing. It's *that* aspect that is trollish, not the partisan point of view.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

"My objection is to someone who has no investment in the CC community posting solely on political topics."

Excuse my french, but what the F are you trying to say. That a person should not post on CC Cafe if he does not post on the other forums??? i'm sorry But I certainly believe Fundingfather has the right to discuss whatever he F-ing chooses on a public discussion board. Be it politics or whatever, that is his right and choice.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

What an incredible statement! Is this a private club or is thedad an investor? Is Big Brother watching?

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit

Seriously....thedad, do you think you have the right to tell people where/what/when/if they should be able to post? If you do, let me set you straight by informing you that you don't.

Don't think we believe that **** about "it was only because he does not contribute to CC, and it had nothing to do with his political persuasion"...because you and I and everyone else knows that it did. Several people continuously post anti-Bush threads and I rarely, if ever, see them anywhere else....and yet, you were mysteriously absent from those threads...coincidence? I don't think so.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:24 pm: Edit

ROFL where to begin where to begin where to begin?

Hoo_29, are you new here? If you are, I want to let you know that I've read some of your recent posts and they take typical Bush bashing to a whole new level. In fact, they are practically comedic and downright hilarious. For some reason, I cannot help but imagine you typing your anti-Bush ramblings while practically foaming at the mouth.

And basically, everone of your points have already been discussed HEAVILY in detail by Democrats and republicans on this board. It's just a matter of exploring the archives.

So for future advice, lighten up a little. I read this post and burst out laughing and couldn't stop myself for quite a while.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Once again TheDad has appointed himself the person to decide whose contributions to CC are important and whose are not. Calling FundingFather names is not an acceptable contribution in my judgment. Why don't you apologize to FundingFather and start behaving like an adult?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit

TheDad, I think, has worked his way into a corner. Lol.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

Hoo, do you recall what Kerry's vote was on this war?

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit

Don't even bother, Annieivy. If someone is so intent on bashing Bush, no amount of logic is going to convince him or her otherwise. Just accept that there are people like that, and instead, try to focus on the liberals and Kerry supporters that are actually intelligent. They offer better debate and make many valid points. Arguing with someone like Hoo_29 or even Thedad is like trying to convince a child to leave a toy store.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:51 am: Edit

i agree with pookdogg, there are many intellegent democrats that will pose a logical arguement and look at many points of view. others however fail to consider the multiple points of view on a given issue. the same is true in the republican camp. people i said it once and ill say it again if you are going to make a statement back it up with information. even if it is from a debatiable source I will respect it as a logical arguement. If you say that bush made a mistake i want to know what exactly the mistake he made was, but lets not beat a dead horse. everyone has heard that many people dont like the fact that bush has invaded iraq, and most people know people are wonder where are the wmds. dont make general statements that is backed up only by your opinion. IF YOUR GOING TO ARGUE BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING BESIDES YOUR OWN OPINION.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 08:49 am: Edit

You miss the point. No one is debating thedad because he distracted us away from his messege by his outrageous attitude about fundingfather's right to post here.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 09:02 am: Edit

Thedad: Thanks for giving your blessing to Dick Lugar's credibility. This is what he said after Kerry started to use his words for political purposes:

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry has failed to participate in almost two-dozen bipartisan open oversight hearings. At these hearings, both Republicans and Democrats have offered timely criticism and helped President Bush to continue to shape, refine, and improve our policies and activities in Iraq. Without offering any alternative plans that our Committee and the American people could debate, Senator Kerry has tried to argue that President Bush is concealing the truth and the potential that events in Iraq will become worse. In fact, with the participation of the Administration, we have been publicly airing and examining all scenarios, including the worst outcomes. Through constructive bipartisan criticism, we believe that we have supported and strengthened the resolve and resources of our President, our troops, and the Iraqis. With our help, the Iraqis are pushing through terrorist obstacles to freedom, democracy, and a better life in a country that has suffered through decades of tyranny and has routinely committed aggression against other nations.
We look forward, this week, to the visit of Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq with President Bush, his speech to a joint session of the Congress, and opportunities for Senators to question the Prime Minister and advise him on ways that we can work more successfully together.


And we all know who John McCain thinks is best for this country.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 09:22 am: Edit

pkpat, do you agree with thedad that he should be able to chose who gets to post here? That's what we're reacting to. His political views are not worth contemplating if we see him as irrationally biased.

By Songman (Songman) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit

Ok all you pundits HA! help me out here. I am an independent. I do not trust Bush and his cohorts. I voted for Bush for his first term ,but now I see that he is just a centrist republican who IMHO looks no different than Clinton did as a centrist democrat. Yet, I cannot think of anything that Kerry has done or voted for that was worthwhile. I actually liked Lieberman and Edwards for a brief time,but became disillusioned when Kerry was nominated by his party. I do not buy that Kerry can unite the allies.I feel the allies have interests and we cut in on their weapons sales, trade, etc with the middle east. SO they are PO'ed. So the only way Kerry can get allies on his side is to throw them an economic bone. Being fiscally conservative yet socially moderate I have a dilemma. The GOP is not fiscally conservative and the democrats while presenting a more centrist view on social issues (e.g. convention) once elected they stack the courts with far left leaning judges and they let the ACLU run the courts practically. I basically despise both candiates and am still undecided although I have a feeling that if I vote for Bush I will be holding my nose as I pull the lever!

By Simba (Simba) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 11:23 am: Edit

Songman: You should vote for Bush or write in me.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit

my posts are being censored and deleted by moderators. there was nothing offensive in my post on this thread, so, moderators, why was it deleted?

Read the TOS and pay close attention to the discussion about discussing moderating issues in public. You have been warned in the past; consider this to be your last one.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:08 pm: Edit

by the pre-dawn hours this morning, around 4am, only one poster had challenged the content of thedad's post or the comments made by the senators. instead, posters were attacking thedad, and not what he posted--a tactic to distract from a lack of any real rebuttals up to that point. that is what i pointed out in my first post, pretty much in the same words.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Annakat, I could go on all day about how the quotes were taken out of context, and blah blah blah blah. But that is not the issue here anymore...the issue is that thedad bombarded fundingfather with criticism for his posts, and then did the EXACT some thing ten minutes later.

By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Annieivy, I don't agree that only people who offer academic advice should be able to post political views. However, baseless attacks are also bad. TheDad clearly outlined his reasons and didn't attack any individual (other than king George). Vancat's post is very inflamatory: "Thedad, I cannot believe your hypocrisy. ...
In conclusion, get your Head on straight theDad." These statements have no support other than pure hatred.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

okay, benjamin. but the real rebuttals so far to thedad's post are far more interesting to read than the personal attacks are. if people have a problem with the content of his post, then they should let us know those arguments. there are many reading these threads. we all might learn something. please go on all day about the quotes taken out of context. i'm sincerely interested.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Well, you see, Pkpat, Vancat's words are downright tame compared to the fire that Thedad was spewing at Fundingfather earlier. I believe that you are angry that we're attacking him rather than his points.

Of course, the content and veracity of his points are the last thing on most of our minds right now. The fact that he's making such points right after criticizing someone else for making points is indeed hypocritical.

Here's something that just dawned on me, and mods, feel free to delete this if you deem it inappropriate: perhaps this isn't really Thedad, but instead his daughter writing under his name. As most of us know, Thedad's daughter is a new freshman at the impressive Smith College. Top notch education, and perhaps a liberal slant to it as well. Like I said before, I generally respect Thedad's opinions outside of the Cafe. He seems level-headed and respectful. But once he gets in here, it's like he's a completely different person...

By Annakat (Annakat) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:34 pm: Edit

pookdogg,

you're implying that thedad's daughter would be "indoctrinated" by what you believe is a place with a "liberal slant" intent on brainwashing its students. give smith and thedad's daughter more credit, please.

By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 01:37 pm: Edit

I could tell you all the reasons I agree with TheDad, but my post would be deleted because my opinion is controversial.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Annakat, I'm not implying anything beyond the fact that what Thedad is spewing is unlike his characteristic demeanor on other boards. On the other hand, your post implies that liberalism and brainwashing are somehow correlated. I never said such a thing. I was just noting that Smith is known as a liberal bastion and Thedad's posts have been, well, increasingly liberal. I give Smith College enormous credit as I believe it is one of the top five liberal arts colleges in the nation. Likewise, I'm willing to bet money that Thedad's daughter is very intelligent or else she never would have gotten in.

Pkpat: Cry me a river. If the moderators delete your posts, it's because you are being unhelpful and/or rude. As long as you remain civil, any post of your reasons for agreeing with Thedad would not only be allowed, it would be welcome. Give the mods more credit, please.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit

Hi Pookdogg!

Regarding being different persons, the same has been said about me by my dear friend Simba! The reality is that the purpose of the Cafe is very different from the other forums. The other forums are geared towards helping people more than exchanging opinions. While this is still a moderated forum, there is a lot more latitude for personal -and political- expression. As far as the style, it is 100% unadulterated TheDad. I am sure that TheDaughter would smile at the thought of impersonating her father to post incendiary messages. Annakat called that one correctly. Obviously, even a dead clock still shows the correct time twice a day!

I also believe that some personal animosity can be expected between posters. There are posters that are striking the wrong nerve, again, again, and again. I have to admit that a few posters have developed a posting style that is too irritating to ignore easily. Since it is hard to see clear through eyes filled with anger, blood, and fire, the feud -that includes punches below the belt- between TheDad and Fundingfather was bound to happen. In my opinion, tt is also a situation that is so illogical that it is best ignored and left to the moderators.

By the way, I always enjoy your posts, Pookdogg!

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

What happened to my message?

By Simba (Simba) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Xiggi:the same has been said about me by my dear friend Simba!.....are you pulling my leg?

glad to see you back.

By Xiggi (Xiggi) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Glad to oblige in providing the quotation:


Quote:

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 08:51 pm: Edit
Because Xiggi on other threads you write and reason extremely well. However, when it comes to politics that is left of your beliefs you seem to lose all your objectivity. It seems you turn in to another person. You are a very bright boy. Compare your logic, tone and language with that of CraigK or jlq3d


By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit

I had a valid argument a while ago that didn't insult anyone or anything. I actually talked about how Kerry voted for the war on the facts that Bush presented to him, which happened to be incorrect. Please don't delete this. I am simply answering a question. If you delete this then you should have deleted Annieivity's comment. BB is watching

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Well, well, if it isn't Xiggi, the SAT kung-fu master himself. Color me flattered! And point taken: I'll concede the Thedaughter comment was a bit out of line, but what's wrong with having a little bit of innocuous fun? Anyways, good to see the Big X on the Cafe board again.

Unfortunately, I cannot help but chuckle at the poor souls who rail and moan about how their comments will be deleted by the moderators: "If you delete this then you should have deleted Annieivity's [sic] comment. BB is watching."

First of all, Hoo_29, nobody ever mentioned anything about your comment being deleted. We just thought it was illogical and reeked of "I feel cool because I'm bashing Bush" ideals. As Vancat said earlier, your ideas have been dissected , refuted, proven, and refuted again ad nauseum on this board for the past few months now. We've established that it's all a matter of judgment, and that conservatives will be conservatives (and vice versa) yet you firmly and boldly denounce Bush with generic and questionable accusations. At least Thedad brought something new to the table when he started this thread.

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Paranoia. Dissapearing messages. People accusing others of being political plants. Moderators weilding heavy clubs. Have I wondered into the twilight zone? It at first seemed to be a simple college help board.

By Pookdogg (Pookdogg) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Meet Ann Hill. An unassuming young woman ensconced safely in San Francisco, California. She hopes to go to college someday, get an education, make lots of money, and perhaps one day return to the beautiful city by the bay that she knows and loves.

Under the name of Annieivy, Ann Hill enjoys frequenting the popular web site CollegeConfidential.com. An informative and fun site, she checks often for college advice, political debates, and much more.

One day, Ann was walking to her computer to check her e-mail when she tripped and stumbled. She grazed her head on the computer monitor and fell unconscious to the carpeted ground. When she came to, she did not find herself in her comfortable home in sunny San Francisco. No, she found herself in...

ThE tWiLiGhT zOnE .... doodoodoodoo doodoodoodoo doodoodoodoowaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!











The Terms of Service state "....discussion of moderator actions and forum policies is welcomed via e-mail; these issues are off-topic for the forums."

When you refer to---or even ask about---a post that was deleted, you are in direct violation of the TOS. Moderators have been known to enforce that rule instantly and without warning. If you talk about what moderators do, should do, or have done----you stand a good chance of waking up tomorrow morning and finding that your password does not seem to work any longer.

To sum it up:

(1) Talk about the moderators and you are VERY likely to get into trouble.

(2) Talk about other users in a flaming manner and you will also get into trouble.

(3) Talk about the topic! That is what you are supposed to do. That is what we all come here for!

<moderator>

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit

OK, well I just had something deleted and I was kinda mad and confused, but I do think that I was in violation of the TOS(along with plenty of other people on the other side) when I stated that Kerry voted for the war based on the false premise that Bush gave us. I, myself, along with Hilary, believed that the war would break up the relationship between Hussein and Bin Ladin(which was not true) and that Hussein had WMD's. Well, everyone knows the rest of the story. 1000 troops later(18-30 year-olds trying to pay for college, feed their families), are dead, and all Bush can do is say,"Kerry is a flip-flopper, yeehaw!" (bit out of context but whatever) Now this war has diluted billions of dollars and effort to stop terrorism and maybe even to spend money on the UNITED STATE'S PROBLEMS, but no, we are out increasing the government's power. We are in a huge deficit, we have less money going towards EDUCATION(our prosperity), healthcare, and the environment. I recently went to DC and saw the US D. of Edu and laughed. It had these cheezy looking school house things out front with "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" on it. Hmm... I beg to differ. Education has taken a backseat so Cheney doesn't have to pay more taxes.

The negative to Kerry is getting taxed. If I were president(HAHAHAHA) I would eliminate the IRS and make everyone pay the same percentage of taxes (excluding the very poor who need welfare). That way, both sides experience the same things. If taxes go up B/C of a Democrat's increase, everyone should feel it like the rich. Vice-Versa. I just am so dissapointed in Bush and sickened at the fact that I used to like him. Please don't deleted this

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit

I know that that stuff is old news, but that is the whole point of why people hate Bush. And I really am not some psycho green party liberal who wants to ban cars for the environment or anything. I am fairly moderate. I just think that Bush is impossible to side with, because he is right-winged on EVERY issue, and seems to care more about the vote than what he feels is right. Also, I would jump for joy if McCain could win the Rep. primary one day, but the Rep. party is predominately NOT MODERATE like him, and would rather vote for someone like Bush. What does that say about this party? Why can't they go with the best candidate that would definetely win?

By Annieivy (Annieivy) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

Gosh, I thought I was pretty conservative, but I must be a psycho liberal after all because I believe in a lot of Green Party philosophy.

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:58 am: Edit

o yeah, I registered for CC on Sunday, so I am glad I left a lasting impression over the last few months over Pookdogg. And geez, you guys do not have to be so anal. I know the green party is fine, but it is kind of crazy about the environment on some issues.

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 01:02 am: Edit

And I am glad that you have chosen to work around the meat of my discussion to pick at some minute detail.

By Xdad (Xdad) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit

Hoo, I applaud your support of our government spending more on education. However, your diatribe would be so much better if you would use a few facts, and leave the fiction on the side. Where do you get the idea that Bush-Cheney are spending less on education than before? Would it surprise you that the present administration has doubled the education budget after seeing 8 years of despicable stagnation in the education budget? Balancing a budget is a lot easier when you can massively underfund the country basic needs.

I frankly do not understand any of your suggestions in your second post! "Bush cares more about the vote than what he feels right" If he cared about the votes, he could have followed the much simpler path that was laid before him by his predecessor, and do absolutely nothing. History may show that Bush made the wrong decisions in defending our country, but he sure did not make the easy ones.

As far as the last comment: "Why can't they go with the best candidate that would definetely win?" That is exactly what Republicans think they did.

By Poetsheart (Poetsheart) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 02:35 am: Edit

Xiggi! It is so good to see you posting. I hope that you are feeling MUCH better. You had me scared there for a while. Don't be a stranger!

P.S., How's it going at CM?

By Hoo_29 (Hoo_29) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 02:50 am: Edit

These are the wonderful things that Bush has done for education:

Cut 200 million from The Child and Developement grant (a child-care service for low-income families)

Eliminated the "Reading is Fundamental" program, which gives free books to poor children

Cut funding for Girls and Boys Clubs by 60 million dollars

These are only a couple of the things that Bush has gotten rid of since being President.
"No Child Left Behind" is crap, and diverts attention from improving schools, only getting permission to go to a better one.

Most education legislation occurs on the state level, which would explain a lot. Sonny Perdue has cut Soooo much money from nursing homes and education. But guess who Bush supports!

And Bush made a giant mistake with Iraq, and either he is really stupid and rash, or he is trying to be a bad president. Yet, somehow, he is able to spin issues and problems in Iraq into something completely different.


And obviously, the Rep. won in 2000,but I would be happier with someone more moderate than Bush, and I think that the 2000 election would have been easier sans Bush.

And XDad, I really don't know what you are smokin', but I don't think that Bush is going out of his way to help education. And if YOU could give me proof of his increased spending on edu. I would be happy.

By Xdad (Xdad) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 10:35 am: Edit

Hoo, I have never smoked in my life. I rather spend my money on buying books.

I will also make YOU happy and provide the proof you asked for. This information, borrowed from the 2005 OMB Budget, was posted previously on College Confidential by a poster I trust a lot.

1. Last year, the President signed into law historic education reforms through the No Child Left Behind Act. The budget provides unprecedented levels of education funding to help strengthen America's schools. It includes $53.1 billion for education programs, an increase of $2.8 billion from FY 2003 and an increase of $3.2 billion over FY 2002. This funding represents an increase of 47% over FY 2000 and a 131% increase in education spending over the last 8 years. The budget includes $1.9 billion more for Pell Grants.

$1 billion more for Title I assistance in high-poverty areas schools
$1 billion more for special education
Significant increases for reading and early childhood learning programs.

2. Since percentages may be a tad hard to understand, here is a table that is easier to follow:

1992 28,685
1993 31,324 Clinton first budget
1994 26,881
1995 32,245
1996 29,097
1997 33,519
1998 35,502
1999 33,684
2000 32,240 Clinton last budget
2001 39,932
2002 55,747
2003 63,256

When you separate facts from fiction, the picture becomes a lot clearer, at least for the ones who try to see through the clouds of political partisanship.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Xdad, you fail to state that bush undercut his own program twice. his budget fell short $7.2 billion in FY 2003 and 2004's FY budget falls $9 billion short. on top of this, "no child left behind" is again an attempt at rewarding the rich and punishing the poor. even outspoken republicans have come out against this act. for example, the republican controlled utah house of representatives just passed a bill that would not require them to use the state money for the no child left behind act. it will now go to their senate. i'm sorry, but the rest of the country obviously isn't asleep on this one. no child left behind is bad news and both sides know it. not to mention, rod page publicly said he thinks teachers in this country allign with terrorists; he should resign.

By Xdad (Xdad) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Eyesclozedtight, my post addressed one issue, and that is that the federal funding for education had doubled under President Bush while it decreased under Clinton. Even if the budgets were lowered as you described it, the increases are still real and undeniable.

The jury is still out on the impact of NCLB. I agree that the program is far from perfect, and that some of the proposed changes are impractical. However, I believe that an element like accountability of schools and teachers is a long overdue measure. Contrary to a popular belief, the largest problem in our country's education is not the amount of money, but its prevalent poor use, and the egregious abuse and corruption by a well-entrenched and protected few.

Lastly, if truth matters to you, when quoting the words of Sec. Paige, you ought to present the appropriate context. He described the obstructionist scare tactics the NEA's Washington lobbyists have employed against No Child Left Behind's historic education reforms as terrorists' actions, because they did not represent the rank and file constituency. A slight difference!

This was a quote:


Quote:

"I also said, as I have repeatedly, that our nation's teachers, who have dedicated their lives to service in the classroom, are the real soldiers of democracy, whereas the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate all our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live. But, as one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better."



For what it is worth, I believe that the NEA is an organization that has spun out of control by straying far from its roots and becoming nothing but a questionable, ineffective, and cyncical political organization. While calling the NEA a terrorist organization is over-the-top, they are still plenty of derogatory epithets that remain well-deserved. After all, it is the same union that has been rattled by corruption and scandals!

By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit

would you put NRA in the same category?


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page