<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush is a failed president with a failed record. You will find that most people who think we shouldve fought the war in iraq have no family or friends fighting in iraq and sit behind a television like cheerleaders rooting for the home team like its a game. Its all fine until your father or mother or brother or sister is shipped off with a possibility theyll never return again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Back this up please. Show us some statistics. Don't just throw out an accusation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bush policy has failed at everything. Education, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How so? Do you mean No Child Left Behind? If so... How has it failed? If you say there wasn't enough money I'd say the problem has more to do with how the money is spent. Out problem with edcucation, and this goes back way before Bush, is that we keep throwing money at it as if that will fix the problems. Sure, more money will fix some problems, but the vast majority of them money will not solve.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Healthcare,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How? With the Medicare reform stuff? As some big organization that is considered liberal said... Its not perfect, but its a start.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the budget,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The budget? You mean the one Congress has the final word on? Or do you mean the deficit? Well, the deficit isn't as bad at this point as people think. Yes, its a heck of a lot of money, but any negative impacts because of it are negligent at this point. We'll be fine...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the Economy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean the economy that's doing quite well at this point? The one that's picking up steam? The one that's creating jobs? <a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208' target='_blank'>Link</a>. The economy is doing great right now. Its amazing how good its doing tbh. Bush inheritted a recession. Yes, technically the recession started after he took office, but that has more to do with the way things work. Technically a recession starts after two quarters of something bad happening ( GDP decreasing or something ), and it just so happens the second quarter ended right after Bush took office... And so the recession technically started during his term... But we can now tell that it really goes back further than that.
So the economy is doing great... Get off the bad economy bandwagon. The facts do not support such pessimism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->even the War (our soldiers won the war, bush's policy is failed).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush's policies failed? How so? I could've sworn that we're not done in Iraq yet. <a href='http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/' target='_blank'>Maybe a little good news</a>. And be sure to check out the other parts as well. Stuff you never hear about in the mainstream media.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im sure a few other soon to be college grads can take interest in the fact that the average income is $1900.00 less. Not as many job opportunities are available.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Back this up please... And also read my first link. You're claim isn't necessarily true. Less job opportunities? That's probably true, but lets not forget that things are improving and that jobs are being created and that the unemployment rate is just barely above Clinton's... So its not as bad you people and the media want it to be seem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we should decide to have a family, healthcare is getting out of hand which is forcing some state governments to turn to OTHER countries to buy prescription drugs, and simply 44 million americans cant even afford it alltogether.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahhhh yes... All Bush's fault. Shame on Bush for not being able to reform our medical coverage in less than 4 years! Its all Bush's fault!! Congress has no say! Yes, more can be done to get all Americans medical insurance... But its totally unfair to blame Bush for something that no one before him could fix. And if you want to start blaming people for medical costs increasing... Blame the damn tort system ( and the lawyers who abuse it ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Education, well, you take a look at it. Not much to say there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apparently not much to say at all... So what's your problem with the education system?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tuition is getting even steeper so the average family cant even send their kids to college.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-06-28-tuition-burden-cover-usat_x.htm' target='_blank'>Wrong... Maybe you should back up this claim too?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh guys, and please stop repeating ads that you see on TV..its sad, and misleading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Does that include repeating from the John Kerry website? Or maybe the Democratic Underground?
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Education: No Child Left Behind results in "teaching to the test" instead of actual teaching. It's also massively underfunded because Bush didn't give it the money he said he would when he was getting it passed.
Budget: the worst deficit since the Depression, created in just 4 years from an enormous *surplus* under Clinton (I'm not sure a big surplus is much better than a big deficit, but at least a surplus is money we *have*. A deficit is money we *need*). The deficit hit $375 billion in 2003, the highest dollar value ever (beating $290b in 1992, under Bush Sr). The projected deficit for 2004 is, from the administration's own mouth, $639 billion (<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/02/1091298607067.html?oneclick=true' target='_blank'>source</a>).
Economy: It might be improving slightly now, but (1) Bush's net job-loss is still enormous - the *only* president since Hoover (the Great Depression) to have a negative net-job record during his presidency (<a href='http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=327' target='_blank'>source</a>). (2) Most of the new jobs being created are dead-end, nowhere jobs. All those new "manufacturing" jobs that were created a few months ago? That's because the definition of "manufacturing job" was broadened to include - wait for it - FAST FOOD WORKERS. Nice.
Big Business vs. Everybody Else: this, IMO, is Bush's shining star. He has deregulated industries left and right "to give them room for growth" and to let them roll over consumers and the environment. He has given tax breaks to the wealthiest 20% and the wealthiest 1%, even while he claimed in his campaign speech in 2000 that "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom of the economic ladder." The bottom 60% of the ladder got 14% of his big original tax cut. Bush recently killed a bill that would have extended middle-class tax relief <b>because Democrats would have voted for it</b> and he wouldn't have been able to take total credit for it. Even his own party, which has historically stood for small government, is blinking at his spending record.
International Policy: Bush has alienated some of our strongest allies and provided a host of new reasons for anti-American (and terrorist) sentiments abroad. He has picked fights on multiple fronts for dubious or straight-up fraudulent reasons. We have yet to find Osama Bin Laden (Bush doesn't even care anymore, from his own statements), and there is no end in sight for what was supposed to be a brief action in Iraq.
Health Care: Sure, he's helped it, if you consider the new Medicare cards "helping it." The cards are so complex that they're only likely to confuse the seniors they're supposed to help. In many cases, the actual, tangible benefits are negligible or nonexistant. Additionally, the companies who provide the drugs can change what a given card covers as often as every week! Talk about bait-and-switch. It's not simple, it's not helpful.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Aug 3 2004, 05:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Aug 3 2004, 05:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> International Policy: Bush has alienated some of our strongest allies and provided a host of new reasons for anti-American (and terrorist) sentiments abroad. He has picked fights on multiple fronts for dubious or straight-up fraudulent reasons. We have yet to find Osama Bin Laden (Bush doesn't even care anymore, from his own statements), and there is no end in sight for what was supposed to be a brief action in Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If I knew more about American domestic policy, I'd comment on the rest of your stuff, but seeing as I dont:
Just reiterating my idea that the US doesnt really have any allies. Face it - the French no longer need you, so why are they going to back your wars if it means they lose perks like UN program rorting? Why are the Germans going to come flying to your aid if they dont need the US's help? Your "strongest" allies promised to veto ANY move into Iraq BEFORE they had seen a draft of the plan.
As for a host of new reasons for terrorists, since when have terrorists needed more reasons? They had all the reasons they needed back in 2001 when they whacked your WTC. They will always have the Israel/Zionist drawcard, and the US will always be a convinient scapegoat when questions like "Why are we living in dirt and misery" arise in the Middle East. More reasons, less reasons, they are STILL going to attack.
I dont know, maybe it was hyped more in the US than here, but I was never under the illusion of a short war. Anything worth doing these days seems to be difficult.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Aug 2 2004, 12:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Aug 2 2004, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Education: No Child Left Behind results in "teaching to the test" instead of actual teaching. It's also massively underfunded because Bush didn't give it the money he said he would when he was getting it passed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll play with this one. It's a favorite.
This site requires a "fake" login so I'll save you the trouble:
<b>The Contentious 'No Child' Law II: Money Has Not Been Left Behind</b>
By Paul E. Peterson & Martin R. West <i>Education Week</i>
The No Child Left Behind law is, intrinsically, an inexpensive school reform, a plan to get more bang from existing bucks.
"An unfunded mandate," cry the critics of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. In the words of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: "By neglecting his promise to provide the funding necessary to help each student to reach high standards, George W. Bush has made a mockery of the phrase 'leave no child behind.'" Virginia's Republican-dominated legislature recently struck a similar chord, passing (on a vote of 98-1) a resolution complaining that the law will cost "literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have."
A damning critique, if true. But consider the following:
The No Child Left Behind law is, intrinsically, an inexpensive school reform, a plan to get more bang from existing bucks, not a high-priced mandate. The costs of setting standards, testing students, and releasing results to the general public are trivial, compared to the cost of public schooling more generally.
Two Massachusetts officials, James Peyser and Robert Costrell, report in the current issue of our publication, Education Next, that accountability costs in their state run about $20 per student tested. Looking at 25 states, the Harvard University economist Caroline Hoxby found that the costs of accountability systems in place in the 2000-01 school year ranged from less than $2 per public school student in South Carolina to $34 per student in Delaware. Costs in the median state were just $15 per public school student. Meanwhile, average per-pupil costs in U.S. public schools now run approximately $10,000 a year.
In short, the true costs of the No Child Left Behind Act are no more than 0.2 percent of the total cost of public schooling. Would that all unfunded mandates were so cheap.
But if the mandate is cheap, the new federal bucks are plentiful. Historically, education has been a matter to be funded by state and local governments. But the federal role has been increasing rapidly under the Bush administration. Between 2000 and 2003, the U.S. Department of Education upped its contribution to elementary and secondary education by approximately $300 per pupil, from $23 billion to $36 billion dollars—15 times the cost of accountability.
Out of this banner increase, $384 million was set aside in fiscal year 2003 specifically to pay for the additional costs of accountability—enough to pay in full for the math and reading tests required by No Child Left Behind, starting in 2005-06, say Messrs. Peyser and Costrell, if not all the anticipated costs of additional tests required later. To remedy that shortfall, the president's 2005 budget proposal calls for still further funding increases, bringing the designated amount to $410 million.
But for the president's critics, this is not enough. In their view, the president promised still more when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. For example, the law authorizes expenditures on Title I of up to $13.5 billion for fiscal year 2002, but only $10.4 billion was ultimately appropriated. For the president to renege on his promised support, say the critics, reveals a scandalous disregard for American schoolchildren.
This disingenuous argument ignores the fact that virtually every federal bill authorizes more money than is appropriated under the legislation. Authorizing legislation sets ceilings, not floors, as every member of Congress knows perfectly well. Appropriations cannot exceed the authorizing limit, and they routinely fail to come anywhere near the authorizing level.
For instance, the federal education law prior to No Child Left Behind, passed in 1994 by a Democratic Congress and White House, authorized spending of up to $7.4 billion on Title I, but appropriated just $6.7 billion. Yet nary a soul accused President Clinton of failing to provide adequate funding for education.
There is scant evidence that, in the absence of market competition, more money makes for better schools.
But whatever the Beltway politics, won't it take more money to make sure no child is left behind? The law requires that all children reach a certain level of proficiency within 12 years of its passage. Won't that take big bucks?
If money could solve the educational problem, it would by now be behind us. Since 1980, school expenditures—in inflation-adjusted dollars—have risen by no less than 67 percent, far outpacing the growth in the economy as a whole. Unfortunately, there is scant evidence that, in the absence of market competition, more money makes for better schools. Over the past quarter of a century, student performance has hardly budged, and the black-white test-score gap remains as large as ever. High school graduation rates are actually declining. Clearly, money is not the missing ingredient that has kept students from reaching the proficiency levels that the No Child Left Behind law insists upon.
But will the law change this dismal picture? Though it's too soon to tell, early returns are favorable. Two recent studies, conducted independently by researchers at the Hoover Institution and at Stanford University's school of education, find noticeable gains in those states that moved first to put accountability systems into place.
Far from being an unfunded mandate, the No Child Left Behind Act may be providing designer clothes at a bargain- basement price. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, I'm one who thinks the Federal Government has no business messing with State run education systems. But, despite all the grumblings and analysis prior to implementing NCLB, the program appears to be financially stable. Unless, of course, Coil knows something we don't?
Why don't you <i>not</i> vote then? "I won't vote for a democrat" is an utterly meaningless statement, seeing how largely identity-less both partys are (and have been for a while now).
Personally I'm disgusted by the very concept of the american presidential elections, but thats probably a topic for another day.
Just on topic for a moment - am I the only one that fails to see how intentionally misleading statistics (most prominently, 67% of senate votes missed) constitute good counter argumentation? More than 67% of senate bills aren't terribly relevant - as if that weren't obvious enough, the "flipflopping" (to which there is little political gain - unlike say following party line consistently, which has political merit but discourages considering actual effect) issue outlines this, seeing as how on many important issues Kerry's supposedly been a cherrypicker.
Obviously, both sides are guilty of this kind of usually rather transparent type of lie by omission. However, I can't help but get the feeling that some recent attacks towards the Kerry side are a tad bit too desperate - as the self-contradictory "lack of attendance" vs "flipflopping on all major issues" (In all fairness, the anti-Bush argument of "He's a stupid head" is pretty pathetic too).
But again, its a morbid political system, what do you expect?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Aug 2 2004, 04:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 2 2004, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just reiterating my idea that the US doesnt really have any allies. Face it - the French no longer need you, so why are they going to back your wars if it means they lose perks like UN program rorting? Why are the Germans going to come flying to your aid if they dont need the US's help? Your "strongest" allies promised to veto ANY move into Iraq BEFORE they had seen a draft of the plan.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know it's strange how the left focuses so much on forming alliances with other countries, for what? There is no Hitler, there is no Stalin, Germany, France, even England really doesn’t get much from helping us in Afghanistan or Iraq. Our alliances have always been one sided, with us doing most of the work. You can get as paly with France as possible but if sending troops into Iraq isn't to their benefit them in some way, their not going to do it.
Now if Russia were to invade Germany, for some odd reason, they would be screaming for us to help them, but why should we? What would we gain?
Having "allies" is a term that had meaning back in WWII and during the Cold War, when THEY needed US, but they don't need us anymore, hence the alliance begins to die.
BUT OMG BALME THE EVIL NAZI BUSH MAN, HE DIDZ IT ALL WITH HIS "MEAN TALKZ" TAHT SCARED ALL OUR FREINDS AWAY FROM US!
I believe this was stated earlier that Values, not the buzzword, but the ideology related to them will be the decisive mark of this year's election...So let me just say a few words about "Values."
Has anyone here ever bought a toy for their child due to that companies "Values?"
Has anyone here ever decided to buy a car based mainly on the "Values" of the company that made it?
Does anyone here play Natural Selection based on the "Values" that Unknown Worlds has?
And lastly: Does anyone really make any tangible decision based on "Values?"
I hope everyone answered no to 100% of those questions. So why do we vote for a president, potentially one of the most dangerous men (or women), in the world based on "Values"?
I'll tell you why, because we are blind! The United States public is perhaps the most distracted public on earth.
Take this example: We have access to over 200 channels open to us on television, of these only 2 stations actually give us pure facts. Do you know what these stations are- That's right C-SPAN. Does anyone know the ratings for C-SPAN, they are terrible. Yet they are the only real facts we get from our government without spin. What's worse is you can't even get C-SPAN unless you buy cable or satellite which contains many other distractions.
How about this for example: The Movies. How many of us actually get information from films that is useful in making a decision....I would hope not many because the movies are pure fiction (including the new Michael Moore Film (you know F(I don't want to spell it, because I'll screw it up and make myself look like an idiot) 9/11).
Media in the United States is doing an excellent job of keeping us stupid and securing the politicians that business likes (well aside from JFK, he was the last truly uncorrupted president...as time progressed they got worse because at first it wasn't too bad (I mean we had Ford and Carter and they weren't that bad, but after them it got worse, much worse (Bush Senior for example)).
Now you ask what does this have to do with "Values?" This has everything to do with "Values." These "Values" that we speak of aren't values they are merely a means of politics to divide the people and keep them busy arguing with each other while we all get, excuse my frankness, screwed royally by those in charge.
"Values" are just another form of a party system, and they will be the end of American Democracy (which isn't really Democracy because the citizens have representatives vote for them instead of them actually voting on laws (a true democracy is just the voting masses and a judicial system that follows a constitution created by the masses word for word and also follows (or investigates it's time into laws that the masses may want to rethink about) new laws created by the masses not for the masses. Basically a true democracy has no representatives; it's public is constantly aware and working on the issues at hand to aid the republic that they have created).
I find it a bit ironic that we have this issue anyway because even our first president warned us of the dangers of parties. In his resignation speech he actually pleaded that the congress not let itself fall into the ways of a party system stating that it would corrupt and destroy the very fabric of our democracy. Well, ol' Washington seemed to be right, it just took longer than he expected. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are wondering as to where my vote goes: I am throwing my vote away to Nader. Neither Kerry or Bush appease me. Bush is a political Muppet being played with by the G.O.P and his cabinet, and Kerry is a man with no real power to him, he is just the least offensive candidate that Democrats could find, that just shows me that the Democrats have lost their Gaul. I mean at least pick out someone that has some fire in their belly and knows they could get something done. Heck I would have voted for Rev. Al Sharpen over Kerry (and I am someone who despises church and state mixing).
Here's an idea for the American Public: How about voting for someone not based on "Values" or "Talent" or "Behavior" but how about voting for someone that is qualified for the job: someone who knows the world, thinks logical but will also consider the illogical, and can remain calm in nearly all situations. I am thinking a mathematician that focused his thesis on Chaos Theory. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo--> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Edit-(I can't believed I skimmed past this): No Child Left Behind. Lets see where to begin with this sack of (censored). The No Child Left Behind Act hasn't done much except penalize schools that are performing poorly and has threatened the job security of public school teachers. Heck at my child's school about 80% of the teachers and administrators working there despise the act as it cuts their system into pieces. That's right teachers can't teach in the same fashion they have used for years. The system that has worked for years and then a generation that just happens to be slower than molasses in January shows up and ruins it. I say it's the kids' fault for not being able to pass these tests, not the schools. Give the schools some slack and start concentrating on the students that don't pass. Use some of federal money coming into the state to help fund schools to focus on the slow learners, they are the ones causing the problems no one else.
And if you want to know how to make schools better: Require that entry level students (kindergartners) know how to read at the current second grade level, know how to write (just write not how to compose) and know basic mathematics (the basic operations: Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division (and the order of operations)). If you do that then teachers can actually make a student learn earlier on instead of copying. Student will actually learn to think before they reach the middle-school level if this were to happen. And by time they get to high school they would be thinking like college level students = we could begin to teach our youth a trade before they graduate public schools (perhaps even get them associate degrees for those that will continue on to higher levels of learning).
But this is just one of my rants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh and now something to sum up American polictics:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I'll show you politics in America: 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking' hey, wait a minute there's one guy holding up both puppets 'Shut up!' go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid.. by the way, keep drinking beer you freaking morons." ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -Bill Hicks<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jul 23 2004, 07:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 23 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For me, it's choosing the lesser of two evils. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't like using the word "evil" here but as far as the phrase goes, this is a reason why I am not going to give Bush my vote. *shrug*
PS: Why don't we merge all of this political stuff about Bush or Kerry into this thread to make one big massive thread for simplicity's sake?
<span style='color:red'>You don't tell people what to do, we do ( <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) If you have an issue, press the report button or PM a moderator. Don't bump the thread up complaining about other people bumping the thread up in the future please.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Oct 14 2004, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Oct 14 2004, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Quit raising dead topics from the grave, x5. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm repling to threads I've never read or replied to before.
In the future if you have a problem with me you PM.
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PS: Why don't we merge all of this political stuff about Bush or Kerry into this thread to make one big massive thread for simplicity's sake? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did two things actually to warrant this threadomancy summon (which is not the same as a bump, threadomancy means you contribute something new):<ul><li>gave my opinion to an open topic I didn't reply to before</li><li>made a useful forum suggestion for like topics which would streamline the forum</li></ul>~edit3~
Actually this topic's subject material isn't dead. I knwo the real difference beteween an inactive thread and one that's truely dead. The dead ones get deleted as their subject material no longer applies. (which is what will happen to all these Bush & Kerry thrads after the election hopefully) I also think the forum moderators need to learn a new command: merge It does actually does some save memory and allows you streamline the forums.
Sorry I'm jumping on you like this HeRo but I'm hoping by doing so this will be the last time I need to repeat myself. (not likely but hey a man can dream can't he?)
Well, i guess the important thing is that you've managed to convince yourself.
Seriously, dead threads = having to read through the entire thread on an outdated discussion (august means a LONG time ago) with outdated sources and outdated facts. Lots of things change in a few months, especially with the campaign in full steam atm. Newer threads keep discussion focused on specific issues, reduces read time, and allows for up to date info.
OK?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually this topic's subject material isn't dead. I knwo the real difference beteween an inactive thread and one that's truely dead. The dead ones get deleted as their subject material no longer applies. (which is what will happen to all these Bush & Kerry thrads after the election hopefully) I also think the forum moderators need to learn a new command:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure (and I know this is the reason why Nem0 frown on me) but that's why I suggested merging. I mean we see like a new Bush or Kerry thread every few days and it would be nice if we could group them into one super thread.
Besides forum differ from chat for precisely this reason. It's permanent until deleted. I can't tell you how many time I have searched deep though a forum to find some hidden, forgotten gems. Zunni and I both love to cruse though the deep pages in the I&S as there is a treasure trove of creative ideas. I love to lerk in the fan fiction forum and print out pages to read at lunch. (you guys who don't think anyone read what you wrote can know that I will) This is a cool comunity. Trashy forums are so fully of spam and flames that you can't find the wonderful stuff.
Threads are not deleted. I don't know what you're talking about. Why should we merge age old threads from before the campaign had hardly begun with new threads created following the debate? It would mar the topic of discussion, force people to spend hours (I've spent at least half of one on the longer threads) reading through posts and evidence, and then only to be completely confused by the complete lack of the direction the thread appears to show. :|.
<span style='color:red'>Discuss it in private. The issue of whether bringing back this thread was ok or not is debatable, but do not throw it off topic even further by complaing and arguing for a page. If you have a problem with a bump, report or PM a moderator. This thread will be locked pending further review.</span>
Comments
Back this up please. Show us some statistics. Don't just throw out an accusation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bush policy has failed at everything. Education, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How so? Do you mean No Child Left Behind? If so... How has it failed? If you say there wasn't enough money I'd say the problem has more to do with how the money is spent. Out problem with edcucation, and this goes back way before Bush, is that we keep throwing money at it as if that will fix the problems. Sure, more money will fix some problems, but the vast majority of them money will not solve.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Healthcare,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How? With the Medicare reform stuff? As some big organization that is considered liberal said... Its not perfect, but its a start.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the budget,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The budget? You mean the one Congress has the final word on? Or do you mean the deficit? Well, the deficit isn't as bad at this point as people think. Yes, its a heck of a lot of money, but any negative impacts because of it are negligent at this point. We'll be fine...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the Economy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean the economy that's doing quite well at this point? The one that's picking up steam? The one that's creating jobs? <a href='http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208' target='_blank'>Link</a>. The economy is doing great right now. Its amazing how good its doing tbh. Bush inheritted a recession. Yes, technically the recession started after he took office, but that has more to do with the way things work. Technically a recession starts after two quarters of something bad happening ( GDP decreasing or something ), and it just so happens the second quarter ended right after Bush took office... And so the recession technically started during his term... But we can now tell that it really goes back further than that.
So the economy is doing great... Get off the bad economy bandwagon. The facts do not support such pessimism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->even the War (our soldiers won the war, bush's policy is failed).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush's policies failed? How so? I could've sworn that we're not done in Iraq yet. <a href='http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/' target='_blank'>Maybe a little good news</a>. And be sure to check out the other parts as well. Stuff you never hear about in the mainstream media.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Im sure a few other soon to be college grads can take interest in the fact that the average income is $1900.00 less. Not as many job opportunities are available.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back this up please... And also read my first link. You're claim isn't necessarily true. Less job opportunities? That's probably true, but lets not forget that things are improving and that jobs are being created and that the unemployment rate is just barely above Clinton's... So its not as bad you people and the media want it to be seem.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we should decide to have a family, healthcare is getting out of hand which is forcing some state governments to turn to OTHER countries to buy prescription drugs, and simply 44 million americans cant even afford it alltogether.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhhh yes... All Bush's fault. Shame on Bush for not being able to reform our medical coverage in less than 4 years! Its all Bush's fault!! Congress has no say! Yes, more can be done to get all Americans medical insurance... But its totally unfair to blame Bush for something that no one before him could fix. And if you want to start blaming people for medical costs increasing... Blame the damn tort system ( and the lawyers who abuse it ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Education, well, you take a look at it. Not much to say there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently not much to say at all... So what's your problem with the education system?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tuition is getting even steeper so the average family cant even send their kids to college.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-06-28-tuition-burden-cover-usat_x.htm' target='_blank'>Wrong... Maybe you should back up this claim too?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh guys, and please stop repeating ads that you see on TV..its sad, and misleading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does that include repeating from the John Kerry website? Or maybe the Democratic Underground?
Budget: the worst deficit since the Depression, created in just 4 years from an enormous *surplus* under Clinton (I'm not sure a big surplus is much better than a big deficit, but at least a surplus is money we *have*. A deficit is money we *need*). The deficit hit $375 billion in 2003, the highest dollar value ever (beating $290b in 1992, under Bush Sr). The projected deficit for 2004 is, from the administration's own mouth, $639 billion (<a href='http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/02/1091298607067.html?oneclick=true' target='_blank'>source</a>).
Economy: It might be improving slightly now, but (1) Bush's net job-loss is still enormous - the *only* president since Hoover (the Great Depression) to have a negative net-job record during his presidency (<a href='http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=327' target='_blank'>source</a>). (2) Most of the new jobs being created are dead-end, nowhere jobs. All those new "manufacturing" jobs that were created a few months ago? That's because the definition of "manufacturing job" was broadened to include - wait for it - FAST FOOD WORKERS. Nice.
Big Business vs. Everybody Else: this, IMO, is Bush's shining star. He has deregulated industries left and right "to give them room for growth" and to let them roll over consumers and the environment. He has given tax breaks to the wealthiest 20% and the wealthiest 1%, even while he claimed in his campaign speech in 2000 that "by far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom of the economic ladder." The bottom 60% of the ladder got 14% of his big original tax cut. Bush recently killed a bill that would have extended middle-class tax relief <b>because Democrats would have voted for it</b> and he wouldn't have been able to take total credit for it. Even his own party, which has historically stood for small government, is blinking at his spending record.
International Policy: Bush has alienated some of our strongest allies and provided a host of new reasons for anti-American (and terrorist) sentiments abroad. He has picked fights on multiple fronts for dubious or straight-up fraudulent reasons. We have yet to find Osama Bin Laden (Bush doesn't even care anymore, from his own statements), and there is no end in sight for what was supposed to be a brief action in Iraq.
Health Care: Sure, he's helped it, if you consider the new Medicare cards "helping it." The cards are so complex that they're only likely to confuse the seniors they're supposed to help. In many cases, the actual, tangible benefits are negligible or nonexistant. Additionally, the companies who provide the drugs can change what a given card covers as often as every week! Talk about bait-and-switch. It's not simple, it's not helpful.
If I knew more about American domestic policy, I'd comment on the rest of your stuff, but seeing as I dont:
Just reiterating my idea that the US doesnt really have any allies. Face it - the French no longer need you, so why are they going to back your wars if it means they lose perks like UN program rorting? Why are the Germans going to come flying to your aid if they dont need the US's help? Your "strongest" allies promised to veto ANY move into Iraq BEFORE they had seen a draft of the plan.
As for a host of new reasons for terrorists, since when have terrorists needed more reasons? They had all the reasons they needed back in 2001 when they whacked your WTC. They will always have the Israel/Zionist drawcard, and the US will always be a convinient scapegoat when questions like "Why are we living in dirt and misery" arise in the Middle East. More reasons, less reasons, they are STILL going to attack.
I dont know, maybe it was hyped more in the US than here, but I was never under the illusion of a short war. Anything worth doing these days seems to be difficult.
I'll play with this one. It's a favorite.
This site requires a "fake" login so I'll save you the trouble:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->March 17, 2004
<b>The Contentious 'No Child' Law II:
Money Has Not Been Left Behind</b>
By Paul E. Peterson & Martin R. West
<i>Education Week</i>
The No Child Left Behind law is, intrinsically, an inexpensive school reform, a plan to get more bang from existing bucks.
"An unfunded mandate," cry the critics of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. In the words of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: "By neglecting his promise to provide the funding necessary to help each student to reach high standards, George W. Bush has made a mockery of the phrase 'leave no child behind.'" Virginia's Republican-dominated legislature recently struck a similar chord, passing (on a vote of 98-1) a resolution complaining that the law will cost "literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have."
A damning critique, if true. But consider the following:
The No Child Left Behind law is, intrinsically, an inexpensive school reform, a plan to get more bang from existing bucks, not a high-priced mandate. The costs of setting standards, testing students, and releasing results to the general public are trivial, compared to the cost of public schooling more generally.
Two Massachusetts officials, James Peyser and Robert Costrell, report in the current issue of our publication, Education Next, that accountability costs in their state run about $20 per student tested. Looking at 25 states, the Harvard University economist Caroline Hoxby found that the costs of accountability systems in place in the 2000-01 school year ranged from less than $2 per public school student in South Carolina to $34 per student in Delaware. Costs in the median state were just $15 per public school student. Meanwhile, average per-pupil costs in U.S. public schools now run approximately $10,000 a year.
In short, the true costs of the No Child Left Behind Act are no more than 0.2 percent of the total cost of public schooling. Would that all unfunded mandates were so cheap.
But if the mandate is cheap, the new federal bucks are plentiful. Historically, education has been a matter to be funded by state and local governments. But the federal role has been increasing rapidly under the Bush administration. Between 2000 and 2003, the U.S. Department of Education upped its contribution to elementary and secondary education by approximately $300 per pupil, from $23 billion to $36 billion dollars—15 times the cost of accountability.
Out of this banner increase, $384 million was set aside in fiscal year 2003 specifically to pay for the additional costs of accountability—enough to pay in full for the math and reading tests required by No Child Left Behind, starting in 2005-06, say Messrs. Peyser and Costrell, if not all the anticipated costs of additional tests required later. To remedy that shortfall, the president's 2005 budget proposal calls for still further funding increases, bringing the designated amount to $410 million.
But for the president's critics, this is not enough. In their view, the president promised still more when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. For example, the law authorizes expenditures on Title I of up to $13.5 billion for fiscal year 2002, but only $10.4 billion was ultimately appropriated. For the president to renege on his promised support, say the critics, reveals a scandalous disregard for American schoolchildren.
This disingenuous argument ignores the fact that virtually every federal bill authorizes more money than is appropriated under the legislation. Authorizing legislation sets ceilings, not floors, as every member of Congress knows perfectly well. Appropriations cannot exceed the authorizing limit, and they routinely fail to come anywhere near the authorizing level.
For instance, the federal education law prior to No Child Left Behind, passed in 1994 by a Democratic Congress and White House, authorized spending of up to $7.4 billion on Title I, but appropriated just $6.7 billion. Yet nary a soul accused President Clinton of failing to provide adequate funding for education.
There is scant evidence that, in the absence of market competition, more money makes for better schools.
But whatever the Beltway politics, won't it take more money to make sure no child is left behind? The law requires that all children reach a certain level of proficiency within 12 years of its passage. Won't that take big bucks?
If money could solve the educational problem, it would by now be behind us. Since 1980, school expenditures—in inflation-adjusted dollars—have risen by no less than 67 percent, far outpacing the growth in the economy as a whole. Unfortunately, there is scant evidence that, in the absence of market competition, more money makes for better schools. Over the past quarter of a century, student performance has hardly budged, and the black-white test-score gap remains as large as ever. High school graduation rates are actually declining. Clearly, money is not the missing ingredient that has kept students from reaching the proficiency levels that the No Child Left Behind law insists upon.
But will the law change this dismal picture? Though it's too soon to tell, early returns are favorable. Two recent studies, conducted independently by researchers at the Hoover Institution and at Stanford University's school of education, find noticeable gains in those states that moved first to put accountability systems into place.
Far from being an unfunded mandate, the No Child Left Behind Act may be providing designer clothes at a bargain- basement price.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, I'm one who thinks the Federal Government has no business messing with State run education systems. But, despite all the grumblings and analysis prior to implementing NCLB, the program appears to be financially stable. Unless, of course, Coil knows something we don't?
(actaully there is more to it, but i'm tired....although the above statement is a big part of my reason)
Personally I'm disgusted by the very concept of the american presidential elections, but thats probably a topic for another day.
Just on topic for a moment - am I the only one that fails to see how intentionally misleading statistics (most prominently, 67% of senate votes missed) constitute good counter argumentation? More than 67% of senate bills aren't terribly relevant - as if that weren't obvious enough, the "flipflopping" (to which there is little political gain - unlike say following party line consistently, which has political merit but discourages considering actual effect) issue outlines this, seeing as how on many important issues Kerry's supposedly been a cherrypicker.
Obviously, both sides are guilty of this kind of usually rather transparent type of lie by omission. However, I can't help but get the feeling that some recent attacks towards the Kerry side are a tad bit too desperate - as the self-contradictory "lack of attendance" vs "flipflopping on all major issues" (In all fairness, the anti-Bush argument of "He's a stupid head" is pretty pathetic too).
But again, its a morbid political system, what do you expect?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know it's strange how the left focuses so much on forming alliances with other countries, for what?
There is no Hitler, there is no Stalin, Germany, France, even England really doesn’t get much from helping us in Afghanistan or Iraq. Our alliances have always been one sided, with us doing most of the work. You can get as paly with France as possible but if sending troops into Iraq isn't to their benefit them in some way, their not going to do it.
Now if Russia were to invade Germany, for some odd reason, they would be screaming for us to help them, but why should we? What would we gain?
Having "allies" is a term that had meaning back in WWII and during the Cold War, when THEY needed US, but they don't need us anymore, hence the alliance begins to die.
BUT OMG BALME THE EVIL NAZI BUSH MAN, HE DIDZ IT ALL WITH HIS "MEAN TALKZ" TAHT SCARED ALL OUR FREINDS AWAY FROM US!
Has anyone here ever bought a toy for their child due to that companies "Values?"
Has anyone here ever decided to buy a car based mainly on the "Values" of the company that made it?
Does anyone here play Natural Selection based on the "Values" that Unknown Worlds has?
And lastly: Does anyone really make any tangible decision based on "Values?"
I hope everyone answered no to 100% of those questions. So why do we vote for a president, potentially one of the most dangerous men (or women), in the world based on "Values"?
I'll tell you why, because we are blind! The United States public is perhaps the most distracted public on earth.
Take this example: We have access to over 200 channels open to us on television, of these only 2 stations actually give us pure facts. Do you know what these stations are- That's right C-SPAN. Does anyone know the ratings for C-SPAN, they are terrible. Yet they are the only real facts we get from our government without spin. What's worse is you can't even get C-SPAN unless you buy cable or satellite which contains many other distractions.
How about this for example: The Movies. How many of us actually get information from films that is useful in making a decision....I would hope not many because the movies are pure fiction (including the new Michael Moore Film (you know F(I don't want to spell it, because I'll screw it up and make myself look like an idiot) 9/11).
Media in the United States is doing an excellent job of keeping us stupid and securing the politicians that business likes (well aside from JFK, he was the last truly uncorrupted president...as time progressed they got worse because at first it wasn't too bad (I mean we had Ford and Carter and they weren't that bad, but after them it got worse, much worse (Bush Senior for example)).
Now you ask what does this have to do with "Values?" This has everything to do with "Values." These "Values" that we speak of aren't values they are merely a means of politics to divide the people and keep them busy arguing with each other while we all get, excuse my frankness, screwed royally by those in charge.
"Values" are just another form of a party system, and they will be the end of American Democracy (which isn't really Democracy because the citizens have representatives vote for them instead of them actually voting on laws (a true democracy is just the voting masses and a judicial system that follows a constitution created by the masses word for word and also follows (or investigates it's time into laws that the masses may want to rethink about) new laws created by the masses not for the masses. Basically a true democracy has no representatives; it's public is constantly aware and working on the issues at hand to aid the republic that they have created).
I find it a bit ironic that we have this issue anyway because even our first president warned us of the dangers of parties. In his resignation speech he actually pleaded that the congress not let itself fall into the ways of a party system stating that it would corrupt and destroy the very fabric of our democracy. Well, ol' Washington seemed to be right, it just took longer than he expected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are wondering as to where my vote goes: I am throwing my vote away to Nader. Neither Kerry or Bush appease me. Bush is a political Muppet being played with by the G.O.P and his cabinet, and Kerry is a man with no real power to him, he is just the least offensive candidate that Democrats could find, that just shows me that the Democrats have lost their Gaul. I mean at least pick out someone that has some fire in their belly and knows they could get something done. Heck I would have voted for Rev. Al Sharpen over Kerry (and I am someone who despises church and state mixing).
Here's an idea for the American Public: How about voting for someone not based on "Values" or "Talent" or "Behavior" but how about voting for someone that is qualified for the job: someone who knows the world, thinks logical but will also consider the illogical, and can remain calm in nearly all situations. I am thinking a mathematician that focused his thesis on Chaos Theory. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit-(I can't believed I skimmed past this): No Child Left Behind. Lets see where to begin with this sack of (censored). The No Child Left Behind Act hasn't done much except penalize schools that are performing poorly and has threatened the job security of public school teachers. Heck at my child's school about 80% of the teachers and administrators working there despise the act as it cuts their system into pieces. That's right teachers can't teach in the same fashion they have used for years. The system that has worked for years and then a generation that just happens to be slower than molasses in January shows up and ruins it. I say it's the kids' fault for not being able to pass these tests, not the schools. Give the schools some slack and start concentrating on the students that don't pass. Use some of federal money coming into the state to help fund schools to focus on the slow learners, they are the ones causing the problems no one else.
And if you want to know how to make schools better: Require that entry level students (kindergartners) know how to read at the current second grade level, know how to write (just write not how to compose) and know basic mathematics (the basic operations: Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division (and the order of operations)). If you do that then teachers can actually make a student learn earlier on instead of copying. Student will actually learn to think before they reach the middle-school level if this were to happen. And by time they get to high school they would be thinking like college level students = we could begin to teach our youth a trade before they graduate public schools (perhaps even get them associate degrees for those that will continue on to higher levels of learning).
But this is just one of my rants
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and now something to sum up American polictics:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I'll show you politics in America: 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking' hey, wait a minute there's one guy holding up both puppets 'Shut up!' go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid.. by the way, keep drinking beer you freaking morons."
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -Bill Hicks<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't like using the word "evil" here but as far as the phrase goes, this is a reason why I am not going to give Bush my vote. *shrug*
PS: Why don't we merge all of this political stuff about Bush or Kerry into this thread to make one big massive thread for simplicity's sake?
<span style='color:red'>You don't tell people what to do, we do ( <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
If you have an issue, press the report button or PM a moderator. Don't bump the thread up complaining about other people bumping the thread up in the future please.</span>
I'm repling to threads I've never read or replied to before.
In the future if you have a problem with me you PM.
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PS: Why don't we merge all of this political stuff about Bush or Kerry into this thread to make one big massive thread for simplicity's sake? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did two things actually to warrant this threadomancy summon (which is not the same as a bump, threadomancy means you contribute something new):<ul><li>gave my opinion to an open topic I didn't reply to before</li><li>made a useful forum suggestion for like topics which would streamline the forum</li></ul>~edit3~
Actually this topic's subject material isn't dead. I knwo the real difference beteween an inactive thread and one that's truely dead. The dead ones get deleted as their subject material no longer applies. (which is what will happen to all these Bush & Kerry thrads after the election hopefully) I also think the forum moderators need to learn a new command:
merge
It does actually does some save memory and allows you streamline the forums.
Sorry I'm jumping on you like this HeRo but I'm hoping by doing so this will be the last time I need to repeat myself. (not likely but hey a man can dream can't he?)
Seriously, dead threads = having to read through the entire thread on an outdated discussion (august means a LONG time ago) with outdated sources and outdated facts. Lots of things change in a few months, especially with the campaign in full steam atm. Newer threads keep discussion focused on specific issues, reduces read time, and allows for up to date info.
OK?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually this topic's subject material isn't dead. I knwo the real difference beteween an inactive thread and one that's truely dead. The dead ones get deleted as their subject material no longer applies. (which is what will happen to all these Bush & Kerry thrads after the election hopefully) I also think the forum moderators need to learn a new command:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok, they have been doing this since when?
Besides forum differ from chat for precisely this reason. It's permanent until deleted. I can't tell you how many time I have searched deep though a forum to find some hidden, forgotten gems. Zunni and I both love to cruse though the deep pages in the I&S as there is a treasure trove of creative ideas. I love to lerk in the fan fiction forum and print out pages to read at lunch. (you guys who don't think anyone read what you wrote can know that I will) This is a cool comunity. Trashy forums are so fully of spam and flames that you can't find the wonderful stuff.