HeyBub wrote:

KLS wrote:

Of course, those people always like the most regressive taxes as they
don't care about the actual impact of the taxes on real people,
looking only at the numbers to make sure they're "fair."


If we want a "fair" tax, regressive taxes are the way to go. Poor people use
more services.

No, they don't. Take police protection. Poor people have less property
to protect. QED.

It's only fair.

Well, what if a poor person doesn't HAVE the money to pay their "fair" tax?

They can give blood platelets. At, say, $300 credit per unit, once per
month, they could have their annual per capita tax of $3000 paid for in less
than a year. Sorta like withholding.

But what about the mother of 4, each child under the age of six! It would be
cruel to extract a unit of platelets from an infant!

Absolutely!

But the mother is responsible, so what to do? She could contribute a kidney.
At a price of $65,000 she could pay the taxes for her entire brood for five
years. After five years, she could donate a cornea. Same deal. After another
five years, her offspring would be entering the breeding market and the
process could start anew.

No, in the words of Ronald Reagan, those who think there are no easy
solutions just haven't tried hard enough.



I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, may you fall on hard times.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

Some observations:
1. "Education" is the only discipline in which one can earn a
terminal degree without knowledge of a foreign language.

I doubt that's generally the case. Just because one university makes
that decision doesn't mean they all do.


Easy to check. You just have to find one discipline.


Engineering at the school I attended.


2. The school district in which I live is the largest in a large
state. Teachers make up 40% of the employees. Sure, you've got to
have bus drivers and people to print paychecks, but is it reasonable
to have less than half of your staff doing what the organization is
supposed to be doing?

Clearly it would be good to have a higher percentage of teachers. But
schools today have to deal with No Child Left Behind.


And the reason "NCLB" exists is because....?


It's a right wing way to so burden the public school system that
eventually people will throw up their hands and relent, clearing
the way to "privatization" of the schools.


3. I taught high school physics and chemistry. I had more math
courses under my belt than the 11 math teachers in the school.
Combined.

Kudos to you, but that's not an indictment of education in general --
at most, it's an indictment of your school.


Well, I cheated. I had a master's in Match and the math teachers were, in
most cases, education majors.


4. Once upon a time I did a little research. The following were NOT
legally qualified to teach in the public schools of my state:

A. All living Nobel Laureates.
B. All living winner of the Pulitzer Prize.
C. All winners of the Fields Medal
D. All winners of the Edgar, Hugo, Caldecott or similar literary
prize. E. All members of the federal appellate judiciary.
F. All living ex-presidents.
G. All of the members of the U.S. Senate that I could check.

Sure. Those folks don't have teaching certificates. But they clearly
could get them. If teachers got better pay, more folks of that
caliber might.


Yeah, but why would they WANT to? Consider a retired PhD in Chemical
Engineering. He's got about 22 years of classroom experience (as a student)
plus, as a graduate student, he's probably taught undergraduate classes at
the university. Does he really need a class in "Advanced Blackboard
Technique" or "Compreshensive Lesson Plans"?

In fact, they're _so_ smart they could get the certificate very easily.
In fact, some do.


So the school district has the football coach teach chemistry. Bah!

Better pay? Surely you jest.


Nope.

I got to talking to the Walmart "Greeter," your standard old coot, on a
recent trip. He works four hours, three days a week, just to keep busy. I
asked him what he did before he retired; he was a large-building architect,
and designed many of the office buildings in my town. Does anyone have any
doubt he could teach high school plane geometry off the top of his head? Or
Algebra? Or even Physics?


Apparently he'd rather "greet." That doesn't make him a better person.

Could a retired physician or registered nurse teach high school biology
without cracking the text?

Professionals such as physicians, chemists, surveyors, electrical engineers,
et al, don't live in a vacuum or a cave. They TEACH (patients, customers,
users, their boss) every day.

And so on.


No, the education system in the U.S. is broken - the inmates are in
charge of the asylum.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

And the reason "NCLB" exists is because....?

It's a right wing way to so burden the public school system that
eventually people will throw up their hands and relent, clearing
the way to "privatization" of the schools.

Oh, come on now. I don't like the NCLB for a number of reasons not the least
of which is the intrusion of the Federal Government, via the state
government, on traditional local control of public schools. But there was
co-responsibility from the left wing, via Ted Kennedy, as well as from Bush.
This was a bi-partisan boondogle. :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

And the reason "NCLB" exists is because....?

It's a right wing way to so burden the public school system that
eventually people will throw up their hands and relent, clearing
the way to "privatization" of the schools.

Oh, come on now. I don't like the NCLB for a number of reasons not the least
of which is the intrusion of the Federal Government, via the state
government, on traditional local control of public schools. But there was
co-responsibility from the left wing, via Ted Kennedy, as well as from Bush.
This was a bi-partisan boondogle. :-)

Which should be exhibit 1 for why bipartisanship is not always a
good thing (g).

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:40:44 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I haven't followed his plan. How does he suggest we pay for things like
highways?

Roads are supposed to be funded by the gasoline tax, Unfortunately
they are raiding that for other projects. Some states are privatizing
some of their roads

Our clueless former big city mayor governor is trying to hand the major
E-W interstate (I-80) over to the hugely bureaucratic and inefficient
turnpike commission. According to him building elaborate toll collection
plazas and funding the mega bureaucracy will "save us money".

KLS wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:55:34 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

But what about the mother of 4, each child under the age of six! It
would be cruel to extract a unit of platelets from an infant!

Absolutely!

But the mother is responsible, so what to do? She could contribute a
kidney. At a price of $65,000 she could pay the taxes for her entire
brood for five years. After five years, she could donate a cornea.
Same deal. After another five years, her offspring would be entering
the breeding market and the process could start anew.

Your misogyny is breathtaking: where is the father's contribution in
all this? Or all men just potential sperm donors and rapists? Like
you?

I'm as much a potential rapist as you are a potential whore.

Insults aside, you raise a good point. If the father could be identified,
he, too, can be strapped to the blood-platelet-donation table. And, with the
authorities taking DNA samples of everyone arrested, it shouldn't be too
hard to track him down - he's either in the system or will be in a few
weeks. 'Course if he IS in the grey-bar hotel, it makes it even easier to
encourage donations.

But, hey, it's not MY fault she couldn't keep her legs together!

In YOUR society, men "do the right thing" and women act rationally. For
example, men open doors for women and ladies seldom have sex on the first
date.

In the welfare-dominated society, things work differently. For the males,
it's a sign of virility to father as many children as possible; for the
females, having a baby is a way to get out on their own. With a baby, the
mother is a "responsible" adult and can get rent, food, medical assistance,
and the sympathy of many.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

In the welfare-dominated society, things work differently. For the males,
it's a sign of virility to father as many children as possible; for the
females, having a baby is a way to get out on their own. With a baby, the
mother is a "responsible" adult and can get rent, food, medical
assistance, and the sympathy of many.


I'm sure you have a boatload of stats to back that up, but you forgot to
post the links because the phone rang and you got distracted.

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:12:22 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

But, hey, it's not MY fault she couldn't keep her legs together!

Again, your misogyny is breathtaking. You must not have a mother,
sisters, or daughters, and you must be a rapist.

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can get
behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.


--
Keith


Define "win", in your own terms. No web links, no cut & paste jobs.

Depends on the battle, but for Iraq it's pretty simple; Iraq
pacified. As far as the war goes, it's harder; perhaps every last
islamist dead?

--
Keith


Pacified? Nobody's been able to arrange that in the Middle East for at least
as long as I've been watching (early 1960s).

Wrong, but sometimes work is hard. That doesn't mean that it
doesn't have to be done.

Islamist? Does that mean extremist, or anyone who's a Muslim?

What do you think?

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:


You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!



"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.

I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:00:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

\.

Without commenting on the rest of it, the educational system is and
always has been a local function. The feds, even to this day, have a
relatively small dog in this hunt.


Our education is in the sewer for the same reason the auto industrey
is in the sewer. Their union created a top heavy structure where
seniority had more value than competence and most of the money went to
the least productive.

Education is in the sewer because a bunch of holier-than-thou's think
science is a threat to society,

Nonsense.

and that it's more important for little
Johnny to play football

True.

(and for Susie to get laid by the quarterback)

This doesn't go very will with you asinine statement above.

than it is for them to study.

True. .500 wouldn't be bad if you were in MLB.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:27:17 GMT, CJT wrote:




Right now our local school board is spending right at $20,000 per
student and the results can be called mediocre at best based on just
about any measure you can think of (college admissions, test scores,
graduation rate etc)

I assume you've brought that up at PTA meetings and have volunteered
to work toward improvements?

--
I have slammed into the brick wall of politics. I was active in the
group that threw out the god squad school board but that didn't stop
the entrenched bureaucracy, reduce administrative costs or get the
union to allow them to get rid of bad teachers. They just bring them
downtown and make them administrators.Their administratine staff is so
big now they had to buy a whole shopping mall to house them. After 10
years of fighting the system I just gave up.


I knew it.

The dregs of society usually end up in one or more of the following:

1) Motor vehicle bureau
2) School administration
3) Running a boy scout troop
4) Church committees

Replace #3 with HOA board member. It's usually pretty easy to get
rid of Boy Scout leaders. Just volunteer yourself and they're
gone.

The only way to deal with them is to use shock, shame and humiliation.

Lawyers (nothing works on #1).

--
Keith

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.


--
Keith


Define "win", in your own terms. No web links, no cut & paste jobs.

Depends on the battle, but for Iraq it's pretty simple; Iraq
pacified. As far as the war goes, it's harder; perhaps every last
islamist dead?

--
Keith


Pacified? Nobody's been able to arrange that in the Middle East for at
least
as long as I've been watching (early 1960s).

Wrong, but sometimes work is hard. That doesn't mean that it
doesn't have to be done.


That wasn't the question. The issue was whether anyone has been able to
pacify a country in the Middle East. I'll qualify it further: The "anyone"
means someone like us, from outside the region.

If you think someone was successful at this, tell me about it.

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:27:17 GMT, CJT wrote:




Right now our local school board is spending right at $20,000 per
student and the results can be called mediocre at best based on just
about any measure you can think of (college admissions, test scores,
graduation rate etc)

I assume you've brought that up at PTA meetings and have volunteered
to work toward improvements?

--
I have slammed into the brick wall of politics. I was active in the
group that threw out the god squad school board but that didn't stop
the entrenched bureaucracy, reduce administrative costs or get the
union to allow them to get rid of bad teachers. They just bring them
downtown and make them administrators.Their administratine staff is so
big now they had to buy a whole shopping mall to house them. After 10
years of fighting the system I just gave up.


I knew it.

The dregs of society usually end up in one or more of the following:

1) Motor vehicle bureau
2) School administration
3) Running a boy scout troop
4) Church committees

Replace #3 with HOA board member. It's usually pretty easy to get
rid of Boy Scout leaders. Just volunteer yourself and they're
gone.

The only way to deal with them is to use shock, shame and humiliation.

Lawyers (nothing works on #1).


Lawyers cost money. You can humiliate unruly school administrators for free.
:-)

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:


You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!



"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.

I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.
Keith


You don't think Huckabee's a nut case?

KLS wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:12:22 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

But, hey, it's not MY fault she couldn't keep her legs together!

Again, your misogyny is breathtaking. You must not have a mother,
sisters, or daughters, and you must be a rapist.

First you ask whether all men are potential rapists. Then you assert I must
be one.

Have you ever had a second date? If not, do you blame it on "all" men?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
KLS wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:12:22 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

But, hey, it's not MY fault she couldn't keep her legs together!

Again, your misogyny is breathtaking. You must not have a mother,
sisters, or daughters, and you must be a rapist.

First you ask whether all men are potential rapists. Then you assert I
must be one.

Have you ever had a second date? If not, do you blame it on "all" men?



Actually, his comment and question were both perfect. You have expressed
some ideas that I am sure you would never say with women present. You're too
much of a pussy.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



That wasn't the question. The issue was whether anyone has been able to
pacify a country in the Middle East. I'll qualify it further: The "anyone"
means someone like us, from outside the region.

Heck, I haven't seen any indication that anyone INSIDE the region has
been able to pacify a ME country for milennia



If you think someone was successful at this, tell me about it.

CJT wrote:

No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.

I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Yep. We've got Ron Paul. A few years ago, we had David Duke. It's not only a
big tent, the flaps on all the side are open.

The Democratic Party resembles the inmate population of a penetentiary;
you've got the Brothers, the Latinos, the White Supremists, and so on. The
only thing they have in common is the prison. Sometimes, they'll work
together - as in the case of a riot - but mostly the pursue their own
agendas.

The Republican camp is made up of four distinct groups: The social
conservatives, the economic conservatives, the small-government
conservatives, and the war-mongering neocons. The social conservatives
(prayer in school, anti-abortion, etc.) don't care too much about economic
issues, but are happy to cooperate with the econcomic conservatives. The
economic conservatives (free markets, less regulation, free trade, etc.)
don't care too much about social issues and willingly cooperate with the
socials. This alliance often works.

The Democrats consist, mainly, of groups that hate each other, but get
together to win elections. For example, the environmentalist oppose oil
exporation in Alaska while the unions heartily endorse it. The Democrat
groups often work at cross-purposes, but somehow manage to prevail about
half the time.

In a nutshell: Democrats tend to provide for the general welfare through the
treasury, Republicans tend to promote the general welfare through the
economy.

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.


--
Keith


Define "win", in your own terms. No web links, no cut & paste jobs.

Depends on the battle, but for Iraq it's pretty simple; Iraq
pacified. As far as the war goes, it's harder; perhaps every last
islamist dead?

--
Keith


Pacified? Nobody's been able to arrange that in the Middle East for at
least
as long as I've been watching (early 1960s).

Wrong, but sometimes work is hard. That doesn't mean that it
doesn't have to be done.


That wasn't the question. The issue was whether anyone has been able to
pacify a country in the Middle East. I'll qualify it further: The "anyone"
means someone like us, from outside the region.

If you think someone was successful at this, tell me about it.

Sometimes there isn't a choice but to do some hard work. If no one
ever did something that hadn't been done before, we'd never have
done anything.


--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:


You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!



"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.

I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.
Keith


You don't think Huckabee's a nut case?

Kucinich?

--
Keith

krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

wrote:


On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:00:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

\.


Without commenting on the rest of it, the educational system is and
always has been a local function. The feds, even to this day, have a
relatively small dog in this hunt.


Our education is in the sewer for the same reason the auto industrey
is in the sewer. Their union created a top heavy structure where
seniority had more value than competence and most of the money went to
the least productive.

Education is in the sewer because a bunch of holier-than-thou's think
science is a threat to society,


Nonsense.


Just look at the watered down texts in use and how they got to be that way.


and that it's more important for little
Johnny to play football


True.


(and for Susie to get laid by the quarterback)


This doesn't go very will with you asinine statement above.


It may seem inconsistent, but there are plenty of slutty fundamentalists.


than it is for them to study.


True. .500 wouldn't be bad if you were in MLB.



--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.


I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.


Yep. We've got Ron Paul. A few years ago, we had David Duke. It's not only a
big tent, the flaps on all the side are open.

The Democratic Party resembles the inmate population of a penetentiary;
you've got the Brothers, the Latinos, the White Supremists, and so on. The
only thing they have in common is the prison. Sometimes, they'll work
together - as in the case of a riot - but mostly the pursue their own
agendas.

The Republican camp is made up of four distinct groups: The social
conservatives, the economic conservatives, the small-government
conservatives, and the war-mongering neocons. The social conservatives
(prayer in school, anti-abortion, etc.) don't care too much about economic
issues, but are happy to cooperate with the econcomic conservatives. The
economic conservatives (free markets, less regulation, free trade, etc.)
don't care too much about social issues and willingly cooperate with the
socials. This alliance often works.

The Democrats consist, mainly, of groups that hate each other, but get
together to win elections. For example, the environmentalist oppose oil
exporation in Alaska while the unions heartily endorse it. The Democrat
groups often work at cross-purposes, but somehow manage to prevail about
half the time.

In a nutshell: Democrats tend to provide for the general welfare through the
treasury, Republicans tend to promote the general welfare through the
economy.


The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and get
more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed masses."
That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the relative positions
of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:01:35 -0600, CJT wrote:

The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and get
more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed masses."
That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the relative positions
of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Beautifully said: if this observation of yours wasn't more than 4
lines long, I'd make it into a .sig file (crediting you, of course).

krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
. net...

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:



In article , alt.home.repair,
says...



krw wrote:



You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!




"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.


I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.
Keith


You don't think Huckabee's a nut case?


Kucinich?

Not a Republican. Learn your logic.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:


The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and
get more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed
masses." That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the
relative positions of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor
poor.

I mostly agree. We conservatives want to keep what we've got and keep the
ability to get more. Others are free to get theirs, but not at our expense.
It's not that we want to keep/get our wealth at the expense of the great
unwashed masses; we object to the government taking our wealth and giving it
away.

Economic conservatives believe that wealth can be created. Liberals tend to
believe the amount of wealth is fixed and simply needs to be redistributed.

Many (many) years ago, I saw F. Lee Bailey interviewing H.L. Hunt, a rich
Texas oilman. Bailey asked the "are you still beating your wife question"
as: "Why have you never shared your immense wealth with the less fortunate?"

Hunt looked like he had stepped on a bug.

"Because I use my money to give people something more important than a
picture on a museum wall. I give them a job."

And as for the opportunity to create wealth, where else but America could a
poor black boy grow up to be a rich white man and marry Elvis Presley's
daughter?

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in
Iraq
and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody
can
get
behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.


--
Keith


Define "win", in your own terms. No web links, no cut & paste jobs.

Depends on the battle, but for Iraq it's pretty simple; Iraq
pacified. As far as the war goes, it's harder; perhaps every last
islamist dead?

--
Keith


Pacified? Nobody's been able to arrange that in the Middle East for at
least
as long as I've been watching (early 1960s).

Wrong, but sometimes work is hard. That doesn't mean that it
doesn't have to be done.


That wasn't the question. The issue was whether anyone has been able to
pacify a country in the Middle East. I'll qualify it further: The
"anyone"
means someone like us, from outside the region.

If you think someone was successful at this, tell me about it.

Sometimes there isn't a choice but to do some hard work. If no one
ever did something that hadn't been done before, we'd never have
done anything.

Keith


You missed my meaning yet again. Maybe I should state it differently: What
you call hard work, many actual humans in the Middle East call meddling. OBL
and his spawn aren't the only people who don't like meddling. Much saner
voices say the same thing, although they would prefer to end the meddling
via talk.

We are not welcome in the Middle East except as a potential trading partner
(with the saner people). You may have noticed that we meddle in that region
in ways we would never consider elsewhere in the world.

"CJT" wrote in message
...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

wrote:


On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:00:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

\.


Without commenting on the rest of it, the educational system is and
always has been a local function. The feds, even to this day, have a
relatively small dog in this hunt.


Our education is in the sewer for the same reason the auto industrey
is in the sewer. Their union created a top heavy structure where
seniority had more value than competence and most of the money went to
the least productive.

Education is in the sewer because a bunch of holier-than-thou's think
science is a threat to society,


Nonsense.


Just look at the watered down texts in use and how they got to be that
way.


Where have you seen these watered down texts? By "where", I mean the name
of the school district, as well as the city & state.

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:


You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!



"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.

I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.
Keith


You don't think Huckabee's a nut case?

Kucinich?

--
Keith

Kucinich is off the radar screen. You don't Huckabee's a nut case?

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


We are not welcome in the Middle East except as a potential trading partner
(with the saner people). You may have noticed that we meddle in that region
in ways we would never consider elsewhere in the world.

I don't see this. I think we are meddling (currently) in the ME the
same way we have meddled in South America, parts of Asia (see Korea and
VN) in the past. We just like to meddle.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


We are not welcome in the Middle East except as a potential trading
partner
(with the saner people). You may have noticed that we meddle in that
region
in ways we would never consider elsewhere in the world.

I don't see this. I think we are meddling (currently) in the ME the
same way we have meddled in South America, parts of Asia (see Korea and
VN) in the past. We just like to meddle.


Now you're using the right word: meddle

"Hard work" doesn't really enter into this discussion, since I consider that
a positive term, as opposed to meddling, which is a negative term. The only
country in the Middle East where we should've meddled is Saudi Arabia, and
the meddling should've involved an officially announced invasion for the
sole purpose of placing the country under totally new management: Ours.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



Now you're using the right word: meddle

"Hard work" doesn't really enter into this discussion, since I consider that
a positive term, as opposed to meddling, which is a negative term. The only
country in the Middle East where we should've meddled is Saudi Arabia, and
the meddling should've involved an officially announced invasion for the
sole purpose of placing the country under totally new management: Ours.

I think, like in many other things, the difference between meddle
and hard work is largely ex-post facto and depends on the success. If
things went well it was hard work (GWI from a strictly military view we
did what we went there for) if it is screwed up, then it is meddling
(pretty much everything else done by the West in the ME since the time
of the Crusades).

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



Now you're using the right word: meddle

"Hard work" doesn't really enter into this discussion, since I consider
that
a positive term, as opposed to meddling, which is a negative term. The
only
country in the Middle East where we should've meddled is Saudi Arabia,
and
the meddling should've involved an officially announced invasion for the
sole purpose of placing the country under totally new management: Ours.

I think, like in many other things, the difference between meddle
and hard work is largely ex-post facto and depends on the success. If
things went well it was hard work (GWI from a strictly military view we
did what we went there for) if it is screwed up, then it is meddling
(pretty much everything else done by the West in the ME since the time
of the Crusades).


Bingo!

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.


I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.


Yep. We've got Ron Paul. A few years ago, we had David Duke. It's not
only a big tent, the flaps on all the side are open.

The Democratic Party resembles the inmate population of a
penetentiary; you've got the Brothers, the Latinos, the White
Supremists, and so on. The only thing they have in common is the
prison. Sometimes, they'll work together - as in the case of a riot -
but mostly the pursue their own agendas.

The Republican camp is made up of four distinct groups: The social
conservatives, the economic conservatives, the small-government
conservatives, and the war-mongering neocons. The social conservatives
(prayer in school, anti-abortion, etc.) don't care too much about
economic issues, but are happy to cooperate with the econcomic
conservatives. The economic conservatives (free markets, less
regulation, free trade, etc.) don't care too much about social issues
and willingly cooperate with the socials. This alliance often works.

The Democrats consist, mainly, of groups that hate each other, but get
together to win elections. For example, the environmentalist oppose
oil exporation in Alaska while the unions heartily endorse it. The
Democrat groups often work at cross-purposes, but somehow manage to
prevail about half the time.

In a nutshell: Democrats tend to provide for the general welfare
through the treasury, Republicans tend to promote the general welfare
through the economy.

The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and get
more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed masses."
That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the relative positions
of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor poor.



20 years ago I would have agreed with you. Today I don't. I have a small
business and Republicans have mostly made it easier for my small
business to exist and to prosper. Of course I have to work hard and do
all the right things but they make it possible. The Dems, on the other
hand, seem to have the opinion that because I work hard and make money
that I should give a large share to those who don't have the ambition to
work 14 to 16 hours a day. Seems the harder I work, the more roadblocks
are put in my way in the form of taxes and regulations. While I agree
that taxes should exist to ensure vital infrastructure, I don't agree
that they should exist so that some can sit around drinking, smoking pot
and crack all day long and make babies for me to support with my taxes.
Now I'm not referring to those who simply can't work or take care of
themselves. I gladly pay out to help those people. I'd rather do it
voluntarily through various charitable organizations but never the less,
I feel the obligation to help these people.
I am, by no means, rich. My current goal is to gross $150,000 this year.
20 years ago, I worked for an employer 40 hour weeks and grossed
$25,000.00. I paid very little taxes, in percentage to what I pay now
but I am much happier because I am totally self sufficient.
Sorry. This is getting too long.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:36:31 GMT, wrote:
....

I feel the obligation to help these people.
I am, by no means, rich. My current goal is to gross $150,000 this year.
20 years ago, I worked for an employer 40 hour weeks and grossed
$25,000.00. I paid very little taxes, in percentage to what I pay now
but I am much happier because I am totally self sufficient.
Sorry. This is getting too long.

Properiety, like a thief with a credit card.

HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and
get more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed
masses." That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the
relative positions of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor
poor.

I mostly agree. We conservatives want to keep what we've got and keep the
ability to get more. Others are free to get theirs, but not at our expense.
It's not that we want to keep/get our wealth at the expense of the great
unwashed masses; we object to the government taking our wealth and giving it
away.

Unfortunately people often parrot that but live something completely
different.

Isn't it a paradox that stuff like the following goes on everyday.

Take for example the Walmarts in my area. In the past few years Walton
Enterprises, LLC has contacted the government with a request that went
something like this. "Mr Government, thanks for all of your help in the
past for lifting the money out of the pockets of others to help us build
our first stores in your area by acquiring the land and installing the
roads, utilities, traffic signals and best of all giving us a nine year
tax exemption which is effectively lifting more money out of people
pockets on our behalf because they have to pay the taxes and we don't.
So the tax exemption is up so we have picked out another close by
location than you can acquire and develop for us again by pulling money
out of peoples pockets on our behalf. As we understand this completely
renews our tax exemption so others can pay the taxes we don't."

Or how about insurance companies who wouldn't think twice about denying
a claim going to the government and demanding help as in "it was a lot
windier than expected so we will have to pay out a lot of claims, so Mr
Government could you please pull money out of everyone's pockets to help
help us?

Or how about brokerages and megabanks who say they are conservatives and
would do anything no matter hoe amoral it was to make money: "Mr
Government, even though I have an MBA and 25 years experience I got
tricked (read "I was really greedy") into buying those investments. It
would really be embarrassing if my decision making reflected on us so
could you pull money out of everyone's pocket to help poor little us?

And I have known two individuals who always claimed they were true
conservatives and if others had to eat mud it was their fault instantly
change their minds when they got into difficulty. Then it became "The
government has to help poor little me..."


Economic conservatives believe that wealth can be created. Liberals tend to
believe the amount of wealth is fixed and simply needs to be redistributed.

Many (many) years ago, I saw F. Lee Bailey interviewing H.L. Hunt, a rich
Texas oilman. Bailey asked the "are you still beating your wife question"
as: "Why have you never shared your immense wealth with the less fortunate?"

Hunt looked like he had stepped on a bug.

"Because I use my money to give people something more important than a
picture on a museum wall. I give them a job."

And as for the opportunity to create wealth, where else but America could a
poor black boy grow up to be a rich white man and marry Elvis Presley's
daughter?

In article ,
alt.home.repair, says...
On 3 Jan 2008 22:58:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Except that even the NV generals admit that the US had beaten them,only to
be defeated by ourselves.(meaning guys like YOU)

That is where you would be wrong. I was a hawk in the 60s and 70s.

No, Jim is exactly right. "Guys like you" is present tense.

Maturity and history changed that.

All this means is that you're the one that has been pussified,
rather than wanting the other side pacified.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

wrote:


On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:00:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

\.


Without commenting on the rest of it, the educational system is and
always has been a local function. The feds, even to this day, have a
relatively small dog in this hunt.


Our education is in the sewer for the same reason the auto industrey
is in the sewer. Their union created a top heavy structure where
seniority had more value than competence and most of the money went to
the least productive.

Education is in the sewer because a bunch of holier-than-thou's think
science is a threat to society,


Nonsense.


Just look at the watered down texts in use and how they got to be that way.

That has nothing to do with the fundies. PC isn't a fundie thing.
Neither is "Jane has too mommies" in place of the 3Rs.

and that it's more important for little
Johnny to play football


True.


(and for Susie to get laid by the quarterback)


This doesn't go very will with you asinine statement above.


It may seem inconsistent, but there are plenty of slutty fundamentalists.

It only seems like it because it's absolute nonsense.

than it is for them to study.


True. .500 wouldn't be bad if you were in MLB.


Now you're in a slump.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

"krw" wrote in message
. net...

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:



In article , alt.home.repair,
says...



krw wrote:



You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?


NO!




"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get
behind.


No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.



Nonsense.


No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.


I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.

Wrong, as usual.
Keith


You don't think Huckabee's a nut case?


Kucinich?

Not a Republican. Learn your logic.

Perhaps you should be talking to a kettle.


--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading
your party.


I'm not having a party. But if it's the Republicans party you mean,
then yes, there are a few nutcases in there.


Yep. We've got Ron Paul. A few years ago, we had David Duke. It's not only a
big tent, the flaps on all the side are open.

The Democratic Party resembles the inmate population of a penetentiary;
you've got the Brothers, the Latinos, the White Supremists, and so on. The
only thing they have in common is the prison. Sometimes, they'll work
together - as in the case of a riot - but mostly the pursue their own
agendas.

The Republican camp is made up of four distinct groups: The social
conservatives, the economic conservatives, the small-government
conservatives, and the war-mongering neocons. The social conservatives
(prayer in school, anti-abortion, etc.) don't care too much about economic
issues, but are happy to cooperate with the econcomic conservatives. The
economic conservatives (free markets, less regulation, free trade, etc.)
don't care too much about social issues and willingly cooperate with the
socials. This alliance often works.

The Democrats consist, mainly, of groups that hate each other, but get
together to win elections. For example, the environmentalist oppose oil
exporation in Alaska while the unions heartily endorse it. The Democrat
groups often work at cross-purposes, but somehow manage to prevail about
half the time.

In a nutshell: Democrats tend to provide for the general welfare through the
treasury, Republicans tend to promote the general welfare through the
economy.


The Democrats think everybody should have a chance to do well. The
Republicans think the already well-off should keep all they have and get
more, regardless of merit, at the expense of the "unwashed masses."

Absolutely backwards. Democrats want you to be beholding to them,
rather than have a chance to make a real life for yourself.

That's what's "conservative" about it -- conserve the relative positions
of everybody -- keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

Only a loony leftist loser could come up with such nonsense.

--
Keith