From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...nse-full-text/

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.


Ron

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1.../mitch-daniels
-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but
strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is, Indeed!!
I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't be ways to so
so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear to
be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay gets
cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax was cut,
but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare and in
addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has refused to
pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension funds).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1.../mitch-daniels
-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but
strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is, Indeed!!
I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't be ways to so
so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear to
be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay gets
cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax was cut,
but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare and in
addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has refused to
pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a higher
rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person pay
$0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15 of
every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of anything
but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being fair to
everyone.

Doug wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers.

BINGO!!!!!!! Just like most every other business does with employees
who do not perform. (By that I mean those trying to make a profit, and
not those sponsored or supported by a government.)


Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

"Ken" wrote in message ...
Doug wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers.

BINGO!!!!!!! Just like most every other business does with employees who
do not perform. (By that I mean those trying to make a profit, and not
those sponsored or supported by a government.)


So tell me how do you evaluate a teacher's performance when that teacher has
to deals with kids
- whose home life is in shambles ?
- who come to school with clothes that haven't been washed for a few days ?
- who just had a parent incarcerated or murdered ?
- whose parents don't believe that education is worthwhile ?

Teaching success does NOT depend PURELY on the teacher
It also depends on the students, the parents, and even that family's culture
with respect to education.

Even the best teacher will fail if the student is not willing, or able, or
conditioned against studying.

I've long believed that when BHO says "succeed" or "good teacher" that he
means different things than the rest of the people in the USA.

I'm agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, I want BHO goals to fail.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Doug" wrote in message
...

rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

I've long believed that when BHO says "succeed" or "good teacher" that
he means different things than the rest of the people in the USA.

I'm agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, I want BHO goals to fail.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

You're not enhancing Mitt's chances. And you are not enhancing respect for
the Mormon ideals or faith. And that's a pity.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I've long believed that when BHO says "succeed" or "good teacher"
that he means different things than the rest of the people in the USA.


I do not think those words mean what he thinks they mean.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:


What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

I guess that made my mother a good teacher.
She passed away 30+ years after she retired, and still had students of hers
from 30 to 60 years previous, show up at her funeral.
At her funeral, one such graduate of hers, complained that even though she,
her brother and sister, and her 2 daughters were fortunate to be her
students, her granddaughters missed being her students by only a couple of
years.

There is a way to evaluate a teacher's performance
One is to benchmark each student with a standard test at BOTH the start and
end of the "teaching period".
But because there are so many outside factors that come into play, such as
the student's culture and home life, that there will never be a good enough
system to do so properly.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:05:30 -0600, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:




There is a way to evaluate a teacher's performance
One is to benchmark each student with a standard test at BOTH the start and
end of the "teaching period".
But because there are so many outside factors that come into play, such as
the student's culture and home life, that there will never be a good enough
system to do so properly.

It is not easy to grade a teacher, but it is possible to weed out the
bottom 10% or so. Every trade or profession has a few whackos. Get
rid of them early on. Give the rest a good paycheck.

We are the top spending country for education in the world, but rank
only 10th in academics. It is not just money or the lack of it.
Parent involvement is worse than ever too.

On Jan 25, 8:03*am, Han wrote:
RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-....

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... *Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. *But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! *I said BOTH!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

That won't cut it. We have a lot of both here.

But we cannot compete with the politics of large, affluent urban
schools who must have professional quality sport programs, theaters
and other amenities that drive their operation costs through the
ceiling. In Kansas we are losing rural education to the whims of a
few KC and Wichita area schools.

RonB

"Han" wrote in message
...
RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


Well, that's nice

Now tell us how you go about changing parents who are not "dedicated" into
"dedicated parents" ?

As to the teachers, the great majority of them are "dedicated". Because if
they weren't, they wouldn't go on taking the **** that school boards,
"educators", lazy UN-dedicated parents and students, and ignorant
pontificators spew at then.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:27:39 -0800 (PST), RonB
wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.


I thought you were going to say "learning from our mistakes", one of
the best teachers.

HeyBub wrote:

From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"

Sadly, for the last generation or two of total duds produced by the
failing schools this is probably true. These duds can't calculate the
MPG their car gets, don't know how to use a screwdriver, can't balance a
checkbook or produce a budget, etc.

Those are BHO's idea of best teachers. Keep the kids dependant on
government.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Pete C." wrote in message
.com...

Sadly, for the last generation or two of total duds produced by the
failing schools this is probably true. These duds can't calculate the
MPG their car gets, don't know how to use a screwdriver, can't balance a
checkbook or produce a budget, etc.

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us,
we might pick the wrong light bulb!"



What we all need is help from Mitt's tax accountant and Newt's sex
therapist.

On 1/25/2012 11:17 AM, Davej wrote:
On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us,
we might pick the wrong light bulb!"



What we all need is help from Mitt's tax accountant and Newt's sex
therapist.

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same sentence
before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why anyone gives
him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I kinda think he
did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda lizardy.

On Jan 25, 11:35*am, Norminn wrote:
On 1/25/2012 11:17 AM, Davej wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, *wrote:
*From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us,
we might pick the wrong light bulb!"

What we all need is help from Mitt's tax accountant and Newt's sex
therapist.

Eeeeewwwwhhh! *I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same sentence
before....pretty much unimaginable ) *I don't know why anyone gives
him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; *I kinda think he
did them a favor. *Callista looks like a match, kinda lizardy.

What I wanna know is how such an obvious slimeball has managed to
convince three different women to enter into domestic incarceration
with him. Clearly he needs to educate the rest of us as to how to be
a disgusting human being (although, to be fair, he is quite well
educated and intelligent) and still be attractive to the fairer sex.

nate

N8N wrote in news:bf5b1758-e71d-4b1f-a561-
:

What I wanna know is how such an obvious slimeball has managed to
convince three different women to enter into domestic incarceration
with him. Clearly he needs to educate the rest of us as to how to be
a disgusting human being (although, to be fair, he is quite well
educated and intelligent) and still be attractive to the fairer sex.

nate


I don't know what the fimmin brought in, but Newft can collect $$.
Probably his official income is but a fraction of what he gets in perks.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 11:35 am, Norminn wrote:

stuff snipped

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same sentence
before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why anyone gives
him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I kinda think he
did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda lizardy.

What I wanna know is how such an obvious slimeball has managed to
convince three different women to enter into domestic incarceration
with him. Clearly he needs to educate the rest of us as to how to be
a disgusting human being (although, to be fair, he is quite well
educated and intelligent) and still be attractive to the fairer sex.

A $500K line of credit at Tiffany's has been known to cause some women to
drop their linen. Doesn't every "plain ol' Joe" and "champion of the little
guy" have a Tiffany's credit line?

--
Bobby G.

Norminn wrote:

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same
sentence before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why
anyone gives him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I
kinda think he did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda
lizardy.

What's a hoot is his second wife complaining that he did to her what he did
with his first wife with her.

This is kind of a take-off on the advice given to young men: "Laddie, if
your lady says bad things about her former husband or previous beau, someday
she'll be saying the same things about you."

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Norminn wrote:

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same
sentence before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why
anyone gives him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I
kinda think he did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda
lizardy.

What's a hoot is his second wife complaining that he did to her what
he did with his first wife with her.

This is kind of a take-off on the advice given to young men: "Laddie,
if your lady says bad things about her former husband or previous
beau, someday she'll be saying the same things about you."

Actually, what the guy does in bed or with his squeezes doesn't concern
me so much, although there is a reflection on character and honesty.
What concerns me much more is how he gets his millions, which I think is
by influence peddling ("pimping") and outright lies. That he gets it, is
a reflection on DC prostitution.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Norminn wrote:

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same
sentence before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why
anyone gives him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I
kinda think he did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda
lizardy.

What's a hoot is his second wife complaining that he did to her what
he did with his first wife with her.

This is kind of a take-off on the advice given to young men: "Laddie,
if your lady says bad things about her former husband or previous
beau, someday she'll be saying the same things about you."

Actually, what the guy does in bed or with his squeezes doesn't concern
me so much, although there is a reflection on character and honesty.
What concerns me much more is how he gets his millions, which I think is
by influence peddling ("pimping") and outright lies. That he gets it, is
a reflection on DC prostitution.


Do you have any DATA to support your belief ?
Or is it a case of wanting to believe something while hoping it to be true ?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...iels-gop-respo
nse-full-text/

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through those good
xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can make choices about
their bodies or think the world will end if they can't have public displays of
mangers and xmas trees

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in my
name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a public school,
they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism requires ten or more in
prayer to represent the community. I'm sure Islam has a similar requirement.
By prohibiting public prayer, in my view, the government school is
impermissably interfering with the free exercise of religion.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she shouldn't be
surprised when she gets pregnant.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to protect us
from our wrong choices.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt feelings
about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down in favor of
abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever be.
* Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The progressives,
in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of eating the seed corn.
Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031.../?id=110006913

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in
my name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a
public school, they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism
requires ten or more in prayer to represent the community. I'm sure
Islam has a similar requirement. By prohibiting public prayer, in my
view, the government school is impermissably interfering with the free
exercise of religion.

I don't think that Jesus really meant that you had to Teebow everywhere.
There are religious private schools if you want that. Go there. In
public school, I believe that good manners should be encouraged, but not
any particular religion, nor some plain vanilla averaged out religion.
But then I am agnostic, near atheist. Which doesn't mean I won't respect
religion. But it is not to be an organized public spectacle.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she
shouldn't be surprised when she gets pregnant.

Sometimes what happens leaves little room for choice. Which is
regrettable.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to
protect us from our wrong choices.

No, the government affords us protection from those who intend to impose
their views on others. Is different.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt
feelings about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down
in favor of abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the
way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever
be. * Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The
progressives, in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of
eating the seed corn. Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031...ournal.com/ext
ra/?id=110006913

I'm with you, but my reasoning is different. If we avoid poor illiterate
children, we promote independent thinking. Those porr illiterate
children are too easily influenced by rabble rousers, be they religious,
conservative or liberal ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

I'm with you, but my reasoning is different. If we avoid poor
illiterate children, we promote independent thinking. Those porr
illiterate children are too easily influenced by rabble rousers, be
they religious, conservative or liberal ...

That's exactly what I said: Fewer Democrats.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in
my name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a
public school, they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism
requires ten or more in prayer to represent the community. I'm sure
Islam has a similar requirement. By prohibiting public prayer, in my
view, the government school is impermissably interfering with the free
exercise of religion.

I don't think that Jesus really meant that you had to Teebow everywhere.
There are religious private schools if you want that. Go there. In
public school, I believe that good manners should be encouraged, but not
any particular religion, nor some plain vanilla averaged out religion.
But then I am agnostic, near atheist. Which doesn't mean I won't respect
religion. But it is not to be an organized public spectacle.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she
shouldn't be surprised when she gets pregnant.

Sometimes what happens leaves little room for choice. Which is
regrettable.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to
protect us from our wrong choices.

No, the government affords us protection from those who intend to impose
their views on others. Is different.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt
feelings about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down
in favor of abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the
way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever
be. * Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The
progressives, in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of
eating the seed corn. Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031...ournal.com/ext
ra/?id=110006913

I'm with you, but my reasoning is different. If we avoid poor illiterate
children, we promote independent thinking. Those porr illiterate
children are too easily influenced by rabble rousers, be they religious,
conservative or liberal ...


Which group did a job on the OWS or the GW crowds ?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in my
name, I am with them."

But Jesus never said "go forth to your public school and pray", did he?


If two people can't pray together in a public school,
they might as well be praying to the closet.

Students pray in public schools all the time, most often just before a surprise
test. At all other times it is unnecessary, obtrusive, intrusive and arrogant.

Why is it that you make it sound like praying to the closet is a bad thing?


Judaism requires ten or more in
prayer to represent the community. I'm sure Islam has a similar requirement.
By prohibiting public prayer, in my view, the government school is
impermissably interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.



I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she shouldn't be
surprised when she gets pregnant.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to protect us
from our wrong choices.

did a fine, if somewhat long in occurring, job with slavery. OTOH, there were
those pesky people who imposed prohibition on us

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.

On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church.
NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation,
and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Steve Barker wrote in
:

On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and
state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church.
NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation,
and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a really
tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the amendment to
mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and religious businesses,
and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring religious expressions. I
think that is generally a good™ thing. As mentioned I'm against anything
that allows or sponsors proselytizing.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

That misinterpreting, has been going on for a long time. Not only the
"separation" mistake, but other mistakes, as well. Our founding fathers
would be disappointed with where we've gone, and what we've become.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
On 1/25/2012 11:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:


Except for that pesky 1st amendment thing of separating church and state.


it just makes me sick that this amendment is taken out of context
constantly. It was written to keep the Government out of the church.
NOT to keep the church out of the government. There IS no separation,
and those words 'church and state' do not appear in the text.


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 1/25/2012 2:44 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in my
name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a public school,
they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism requires ten or more in
prayer to represent the community. I'm sure Islam has a similar requirement.
By prohibiting public prayer, in my view, the government school is
impermissably interfering with the free exercise of religion.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she shouldn't be
surprised when she gets pregnant.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to protect us
from our wrong choices.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt feelings
about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down in favor of
abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever be.
* Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The progressives,
in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of eating the seed corn.
Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031.../?id=110006913


I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

TDD

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

I like it. A society run and totally influenced by republicans. No foreign
players on baseball, football or basketball teams, no foreign workers (can't
have even legal ones because there is too much chance of illegals infiltrating)
so there is no fresh fruit or veggies or even beef, pork or poultry and all
those Mac Mansions will have brown landscape dominated by weeds. And all the
*******s will all be republicans or there will be a great tourist boom for
single republican mothers-to-be flying to more enlightened countries for their
"touch-ups"

On 1/26/2012 3:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
The Daring wrote:

I never understood why Republicans were against Democrats having
abortions. Heck, pass a law that compels only Democrats to get
abortions and see how that flies. Thin the herd, heck conspiracy
nuts already believe the real world rulers behind the curtain want
to eliminate most of the world population. o_O

I like it. A society run and totally influenced by republicans. No foreign
players on baseball, football or basketball teams, no foreign workers (can't
have even legal ones because there is too much chance of illegals infiltrating)
so there is no fresh fruit or veggies or even beef, pork or poultry and all
those Mac Mansions will have brown landscape dominated by weeds. And all the
*******s will all be republicans or there will be a great tourist boom for
single republican mothers-to-be flying to more enlightened countries for their
"touch-ups"

You do realize I was being fecesious[sic]? ^_^

TDD

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

Jeez, HeyBub. You want your party to lead, but you can't remember to add OT
to an Off Topic post subject line. How's your team going to handle the
"tough" decisions if adding two letters is too hard for them?

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by
Mitch Daniels:

Jeez, HeyBub. You want your party to lead, but you can't remember to
add OT to an Off Topic post subject line. How's your team going to
handle the "tough" decisions if adding two letters is too hard for
them?

Light bulbs and the government mandating thereof is a frequent topic on this
newsgroup. Several posters here have said things far more hurtful about the
government and light bulbs than did the governor of Indiana.

Or haven't you been keeping up?