Weak effort New York. You need to start sending your Governors to jail before you can compete with us here in Illinois.

And larrymcg421 will continue to jerk off in front of the spreadsheet that he has compiled of my posts, categorized by date and subject (not sure what I ever did to him, but he's obsessed with me)

And DT will continue to proclaim his moral superiority for the things he posts on a message board (though I wonder if he does shit for anyone in real life)

But that's fine, continue to think that you're wonderful people, everyone else is a backwards racist, and you can definitely continue to feed off what the democrat party sells you in self worth, in exchange for your votes. It's a lot easier than actually being a good person.

all that because i laughed at larry? geez molson...take a chill pill.

Nah, I've posted all that before. It seemed like a decent time to rehash it all when I see that I've apparently reached levels of infamy on this board where I'm talked about when I'm not even here. I don't find my posts all that controversial, but whatever.

i don't think they often are either...i was laughing more at the general "there saved us 2 pages" nature of larry's posts.

and i do what i can for people in real life given the circumstances that i have been in (as in "i do some things but i don't feel that i necessarily do a ton, particularly things that demand more in terms of time), and as my financial situation improves i intend to do more.

i also object to the characterization of myself as believing I'm "morally superior" except insofar as I do agree that I feel that I am morally superior to those who are for discrimination and denial of civil rights to U.S. citizens, either now (see equal treatment for homosexuals) or in the past (see discussions on slavery, Civil War, etc). Those are pretty much zero-tolerance areas in my book, so yeah, I will tend to react harshly and call them like I see them there.


I certainly don't think that I'm morally superior to anybody else just because of their politicial affiliation. Now if somebody says "i think we should let all the unemployed people starve to death in the streets" or "If people go bankrupt because they get sick it's too bad for them...they should have been healthier," I do confess that I might very well feel morally superior to that person, as it seems that their willingness to see mass suffering or mass deaths is fairly "cold."

But if someone says "I think health insurance could be better accomplished this way, without a single payer option" I am perfectly willing to discuss that idea with them, and to be open to it.

I think the issue is that (as is bound to happen on the internet) all too often, things are taken to extremes here and people make fringe statements to try to get their points across or stake out their positions. So you see more people saying "too bad for the people who go bankrupt cuz they get sick...sucks to be them...i want to keep the government out of healthcare" then you do saying "here's an intelligent alternative plan for healthcare" or "here's what i'd like to see in a plan - thoughts on how we could accomplish it?"

I think I also just enjoy intelligent philosophical discussion/debates, and since often (not always but often) I do try to elevate the partisan-sniping and bring it up to that level where it can be less of a "right v. left" thing and more of a discussion of ideas, maybe I have somewhat of a reputation as an "elitist snob?" Guess that's a byproduct of my history degree, and wanting to place current events, or current policy proposals into a larger narrative and discuss them on the basis of the idea itself rather than the partisan political back-and-forth which we all know how it will end anyways.

Really though - I think it's that last paragraph.

Fair enough. I apologize for tying you into my frustration there.

No worries. It just sorta seemed like a shot out of nowhere, and I was "Monday morning confused."

I like to think that even where I have disagreements with folks on here that there's never any ill-will. Shit, I think if I was down in GA I could look up Jon and we could go out and have a cup of coffee or 10 and not want to scream at each other, as long as we kept the discussion away from certain subjects, or didn't linger on them.

Or for that matter Cam, who I had that back-and-forth with last week. Although I did sort of drop it towards the end when he blasted tossed out a sarcastic (motivated by frustration?) question and I kind of felt that the "useable" portion of the discussion had run its course.

:D

SI

Well, cant blame MBBF, he's simply reposting something he scribbled on his hand.

C'mon, that's weak. If I'm obsessed with you, then you're definitely obsessed with every liberal poster on this board, as you feel the need to constantly call us hypocrites if any criticism we make isn't somehow consistent with criticism that was made when Bush was in office.


Wow, what a strawman you created here. I never claimed to be a "wonderful person", and I certainly never called anyone a backwoods racist.

But that's fine, continue stereotyping the liberal posters on this board as one group without divergent opinions while claiming to be unbiased and simply just wanting to help MBBF to fight off the swarm of liberals here (I guess you have Arles, Jon, and Cam on block?).

So if you're wondering why I'm "obsessed" with you, it's because you act like a phony by trying to hide behind some veil of non partisanship and you have about as much credibility on that as Bill O Reilly. I respect Jon as much as anyone else on this board and that's because he doesn't hide who he is for a second. Every once in a while you come up with a strong conservative argument that I don't have a good response for, so I'm wondering why you feel the need to constantly post the same crap over and over again like your whiny post up above when someone called you out for your stereotyping.

I kindof want to play this game where we cast each frequent poster of the political thread as the political talking head they most line up with.

*So, for instance, you have Rush Limbaugh. Who on the board doesn't really care what they say, no matter how crazy, because, frankly, they're almost bigger than the entire game anyways?
*Or who gets to play Rachel Maddow- the cute, perky one who can be the calm, intellectual voice of reason at times but the shrill, partisan echo chamber at others?
*Or Sean Hannity- that "can I play, too" little brother who never has quite gotten the broad attention that Limbaugh or O'Reilly and can't even get flavor of the moment now that Glen Beck is out there but has fashioned his own little niche audience as being a brown noser and wannabe.
*Or Anderson Cooper- the guy who's off talking about something half the time that no one cares about but views those stories on the ground and rarely gets into the political fray.
*Or pick a generic NPR personality (redundant, I know), say, Robert Siegel or Mellisa Block. Who has the message board equivalent of NPR-voice as their monotonous typing generally generates good stories that aren't horribly biased towards one side or the other? Or at least that's what people who don't fall asleep reading them claim- not that you've ever found anyone who can honestly claim that when pressed for an answer.

I'm pretty sure this would have catastrophic results but the idea gets 4 stars in my mind :D

SI

She's a female Keith Oberman. She even has the same voice inflections and manerisms.

except she's frickin' super annoying! super!

I'm sure they have some distinguishing characteristic that's just not coming to mind at the moment other than that one's male and the other female.

SI

they both like women though

Another House seat opens up as John Murtha (D-PA) just passed away.

I'm sure he died because he could see the writing on the wall.

Seriously, he was a corrupt bastard. I feel for his family, but ideally the House can get a member with less stench of corruption.

lol @ Palin slamming the bailout yesterday when in her Katie Couric interview she was 100% behind it.

She's probably not as tall as Keith.

This is just stupid on her part. She should have just said that public figures in the government should be held to higher standard that radio talk show hosts and left it at that. Why try to parse words and defend Limbaugh?

Because she's stupid.

Bipartisan meeting between the Left and Right doesnt look like it'll happen as the GOP sent the President their list of requirements for them to show up to a televised meeting on Health Care. One of the requirements is that the Pres. agree to take reconciliation off of the table, another is that a rep of the CBO be present while the GOP can bring in their own experts, another requirement is that Dems invite Democrats who are also against the Democrats health care bill as has been put forth already....

I'd suspect that the Dems put the letter all over the news and show that the GOP (esp. Eric Cantor who apparently authored the letter with Boehner) isnt willing to work together with the Dems in good faith and continue their party of "no" show. Oh another requirement was that the bill as stands be scrapped and the Legislative branch "start over" on UHC.

While the GOP will likely say, "see the Dems wont let us partake in really trying to shape a bill." and it'll be DC as usual.

Republican lawmakers blasting the stimulus bill in public but acknowledging its virtues and seeking cash from it behind closed doors.

Stimulus foes see value in seeking cash - Washington Times

Although I'm against pork in any way, Kit Bond does bring up an interesting point. If he doesn't use some of the money on his own state, it's likely going to be pocketed by another state. Does he oppose it completely on principal while other states steal millions through pork spending or does he stick his hand into the cookie jar and bring himself to the level of the other politicians? We obviously know the choice that Kit made.

Are there any articles detailing the pork spending for all Congressman rather than just the GOP?

First off it's not pork-spending if it's the stimulus bill. Nice try though.

Secondly, I almost put in my original post that I'm sure that Democratic congressman have gotten plenty of stimulus money for their states/districts, but at least they didn't hem and haw and make a huge deal about how this bill was the absolute worst thing in the world in public and then turn around and stick out their hands in private.

It's disingenuous. Clearly everyone's district was going to get spending - it's more their COMMENTS in private that are ridiculous - to oppose something by saying it's a waste and will do nothing to help the problem in public and then turn around in private and admit that of course it will create jobs...that's pretty sleazy. Shows that they have real contempt for those that would vote for them too, to think they're too stupid to see through that.

Ron Paul has been saying that for a long time. His district pays federal taxes. He thinks the spending bills are all outrageous (look at his voting record). The money is going to get spent if the bill gets passed though so why shouldn't his continuants get some of it back? It's their money!

I know he gets blasted by some because they don't know how to respond to someone who doesn't believe a larger federal government is a good thing. But I fail to see how this is illogical or goes against his principles.

I have said this before in this thread. Our math department gets $1000 to spend between the 9 members. I think it is a huge waste of taxpayer money but if we don't spend it it doesn't get refunded to them it goes into some fund where our administrators can use it on a pork project or a trip to a conference in Miami. So I speak out against it and then work with the math department to spend it on something useful.

That's the key point there. WORK WITH THE MATH DEPARTMENT TO SPEND IT ON SOMETHING USEFUL.

But wouldn't it be better if the money weren't spent for spending's sake, and instead never taken in the first place? This is the second time recently you've made the point "The money's been taken, it can be used however the beneficiary sees fit" instead of asking "Why was the money taken in the first place?"

Well IMO it is never more useful than a $1000 refund to the taxpayers would be. It is just extra "pork" money that we either "spend or lose". I am certain this happens in non-government places as well but it always just seemed illogical and wasteful to me.

I assume you are talking to DT because I agree completely with that statement. As do a lot of conservative Republicans. (Hell, I am not a super insider maybe there are some fiscally conservative Democrats too)

Though I will go against MBBF on Kit Bond. That guy has never seen a federal spending item that Missouri couldn't waste money on and is always part of out of control spending under any Republican administration. So him being against spending is purely a political move, one that he deserves to be voted along with Claire McCaskill straight out of office for. (Unfortunately my vote and others votes for Frank Gilmour probably put McCaskill in office but Jim Talent and Kit Bond deserve to be called on their hypocritical bullshit)

I don't think he's talking to me instead of you, because I've never made that point one time, let alone a secondt ime.

Everybody wants to cut spending but nobody is willing to be the first to do so. Probably because they'd be the first voted out of office too.

Neither have I.

No, you are making it here. You are saying they should spend the money on SOMETHING USEFUL. You said that point was key.

I'm saying they should ONLY spend it on SOMETHING NECESSARY. There is a pretty big distinction.

The time you brought it up earlier was re: food stamps. You said something to the extent of "Well, if they want to blow their whole allotment on the wrong items, then they'll just run out of food stamps sooner". Whereas I asked, why allow them to buy the wrong items in the first place?

Jesse, it would be great if things actually worked that way.

with regard to the food stamps argument my answer would be "because that would be excessive governmental regulation."

with regard to this point, my bolding of that piece of panerd's post was more thinking along the lines of comparing panerd's experience to congress - panerd may speak out against something but when the bill is on the table he works together with everyone to make it a better bill. he displays bipartisan cooperation.

comparing and contrasting that with those Republican congressmen

Yes. We already have other areas in our budget that cover these items you are talking about. This is exactly like an earmark. Extra taxpayer money spent for some project that isn't covered under the normal budget.

My head principal could talk for hours about all the money she needs to pay for different programs. But if they actually took on the NEA and threw out some of the trash they could spend less money for more results. If spending moeny were the answer than the city of Kansas City should have the greatest education system in the country right?

That's not what an earmark is, though. An earmark is the allocation of money already approved for spending, directing it to a specific project. Without an earmark, the agency receiving the funds can do what they want with their allocated funds.

Well we aren't exactly in the same system. I don't run against another teacher from "another party" to keep my job every four years. My comment was based more on spending. There is no doubt most of these Republicans are full of shit and are just taking the fiscal responsibility route now because it is the new populist ideal. However when you fix the system to actually allow real access to third parties (or in Ron Paul's case: alowing one of the biggest fundraisers in your party to debate your other candidates) than they can't just play the game of battling each other and have to actually have a position and stick with it.

MBBF's comment above is completely in line with his 'true colors' that have come out again recently. Hypocritical and ok with it.

We're giving them the money, why can't we dictate the terms in which we give it to them?


Alright, I guess I see that. My point was that this kind of thinking is endemic in bureaucracies. You have to spend the whole budget, or else your budget will get cut next fiscal year. No one wants their budget cut, so they always spend their whole budget, even if what they buy is unnecessary. This is why things get bloated, and good leadership is needed to trim the fat.

So you are now an expert on the NEA and education? Amazing how your ideas sound exactly like the Democratic platform on education. If your friends are in a poorer district than they are probably making a shitload more than I am and have the $500 (which I highly doubt is true) to spend.

By the way...

GARY PLANO Mercer Island School District Mercer Island School District OTHER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION, SUPERINTENDENT $152,772

Maria Goodloe Seattle Public Schools Seattle Public Schools SUPERINTENDENT $248,386

The average teacher salary appears to be about $10K higher in Seattle than Mercer Island. Want to try again?

I don't know about Bond in particular, but a number of GOP congressmen have said the stimulus bill is hurting the economy. If that's true why would they want any of that money in their state/district?

I don't see anything particularly wrong about opposing a massive bill, such as the stimulus bill, and yet seeking whatever funding is provided by that bill to be directed in a particular way. The alternative is even more vicious horse trading in politics... I can't fight your bill because my state will get cut off entirely, well shit, I guess I just won't oppose and tow the party line even more (we got enough of that as it is).


I wouldn't mind more creative opposition though. For instance, senators insisting on population based breakdown for spending... and then if a particular state wants to be fiscally conservative they can trade off federal-based benefits in exchange for federal contribution (all per capita, exclude hard to balance things like specific projects, arrange it by jimmying with people's tax returns).

Of course Republicans won't actually put their money where the overly large hot air spewing mouths are... because on average red states are the biggest welfare suckers in the country. But who could resist the allure of a portion of all federal taxes being variable by state, based on what your local state has asked for in aid and what it wants to contribute in taxes?

Half of Washington's heads would explode of course at the concept, but I would love the idea of Texas for instance being able to say "We're red blooded fiscal conservative Texans with our independent spirit and giant egos. We don't want to pay your taxes, screw your liberal spending!" The resulting implosion of Texas would be hilarious possibly, but it would be a truly novel way to increase 'state rights' in an era of federal insanity.

And therein lies the problem: career politicians.

That's a lot of the problem right there - why are some schools worse than others within the same district? It's not because less money is spent there, and if it is then you need a new school board.

The primary factor in a successful education is not the amount of money spent on that education, it is parents instilling a willingness and desire to learn in their children and taking an active role. When the parents have a low desire for education, the kids do poorly and the schools do poorly. And you find more parents with this issue in low socioeconomic areas than in higher ones, since a drive for education is a key component in BEING in a higher socioeconomic area. There are certainly a number of exceptions on both sides, and those exceptions are a key part of the economic mobility so prevalent in our country that everyone wants to ignore, but it's a key component in the failure of education in low socioeconomic areas and the success of education high areas.

You can't throw money at education in a low socioeconomic area and have any chance of success. You need to direct that money towards community programs to get parents interested in educating their kids, and the community to take pride in the school, and then you stop seeing these "barely functioning" schools that scare away teachers and students alike.

The one thing I would add to that though is enough money to bring the buildings up to a decent standard. Peeling paint, concrete patches in the gym floor and too few desks make learning extremely difficult.

that's true - it would be funny. of course you'd have issues dealing with things like defense and welfare and medicare. what if somebody lives in texas all their life and doesn't pay into medicare but then gets old and moves to say massachusetts and wants to go on medicare?

you'd have to setup some sort of system to make that type of thing impossible...

Yes, but that should be a district-wide issue, not a problem in "poor" areas while working fine in "rich" areas. If there is a maintenance discrepancy in the schools, that's a bad school board.