Now Fox News Controls CNN!!!

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
what I read, I liked.

For example...?

You're on the hot seat, Bertha, and I apologize for that. You'll notice that the other Libs on this board have deserted you, leaving you to fend for yourself. But I appreciate that you're willing to go the distance and explain your views.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
For example...?

You're on the hot seat, Bertha, and I apologize for that. You'll notice that the other Libs on this board have deserted you, leaving you to fend for yourself. But I appreciate that you're willing to go the distance and explain your views.

Thanks. I'm glad you've noticed.

For now I'm off to run errands. PBP; I'll answer.

BTW: The hot seat? Yikes. Anyone out here ever heard of Wally George? This archived article from the OC Weekly isn't flattering but it's the best I could find to describe the guy. I'd go to his show, "The Hot Seat," as one of his reviled liberals. Very few ever took him as a serious voice of conservatism, but lord....

 

[Larry Gude]

Censorship at...

...CNN???

Say it ain't so!

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/5866.htm

 

[SmallTown]

As we have discussed on many occasions, education is a very important aspect that too many politicians talk about, but rarely focus on.
Bush was said to be the "Education politician" (all Bushism chuckles, people settle down in the back). There were talks about how great dubya was for the state of Texas in terms of education. Perhaps if he threatened the death penalty for failing grades, he could have padded both stats...
Sure, I feel some of the things are beyond the scope of the governor's control. That is not the problem. The problem is all of the claims concerning how much he focused on education, yet we show here this wasn't really the case.

Washington Post -- April 21, 2000
Many suggest that apparent improvement in scores on standardized tests is due to (a) easy standardized tests; (b) drilling specifically for standardized tests. Improved scores by minorities on Texas tests are not backed up by use of national tests (NAEP). Emphasis on tests is diverting budget & education time to preparation for tests, away from real education.

The Chronicle of Higher Education -- June 23, 2000
10-percent law drafted by group headed by State Rep. Irma Rangel (dem., chair of House Higher Education Committee). Group met every other week for several months, was joined by a Bush aide twice. Rangel saw Bush only when he signed the bill, Bush never publicly supported it until after it became recognized as successful. College officials indicate that Bush has essentially no record of action in education. Texas lags national averages in many higher education comparisons.

Sacramento Bee -- September 3, 2000
Center for the Study of Testing at Boston College suggests another reason for higher test scores is that more students who would fail the tests are dropping out before taking them.

Austin Chronicle (on web, no visible dateline)
Education in Texas, & Bush, benefitted from Robin Hood (revenue redistribution from rich to poor school districts), passed in 1993, and from TEA's Academic Excellence Indicator System, passed in 1991. (Bush opposes Robin Hood.)

Boston Globe -- April 23, 2000
Robin Hood helped Texas schools. Some schools are under investigation for allegations of falsifying test results or arranging for low-performers to skip tests.


http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc391.html
(also quoted in other web sources)
Texas stats ... parenthesized number identifies source, seeI resource list at end

Teacher salaries at beginning of term - 36th in the nation. ( 1 )
Teacher salaries at beginning of 2nd term - 38th in nation. ( 1 )
Average salaries change in constant 1998-99 dollars - -1.1%. ( 1)
Teacher salaries plus benefits - 50th in nation. ( 1 )
High school completion rate - 48th in nation. ( 2 )
Percent of all students in Texas public schools who never receive a high school diploma - 42%
Percentage increase in drop-out rate since 1986 - 9%
SAT scores - 1996 combined math & verbal - 44th. ( 2 )
SAT scores - 1997 combined math & verbal - 45th. ( 2 )
SAT scores - 1998 combined math & verbal - 44th. ( 2 )
Spending for public libraries & branches - 46th. ( 3 )
Best place to raise children - 48th. ( 4 )

Resources for stats

1. National Education Agency, Rankings & Estimates: Rankings of the states 1999
2. U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Educational Research and Development
3. Statistical Rankings by State
4. U.S. Children's Rights Council

 

[SmallTown]

And then there is Bush's environmental blunders while Governor (Congrats goes out to Houston for surpassing L.A. as having the worst air quality)

So Bush was counting on a bunch of uneducated people who can't breathe to vote for him? We laugh, but the strategy worked.

What scares me is what Bertha said.
" I just voted for him because he was the Democrat. "

bzzz! Wrong answer!

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh please...

...what in the hell compels you to start an inane argument about statistics???

So now I have to show you DC, #2 in dollars per student, way up there in teacher comp and benies and abysmal failure for the kids? All you ever hear about in DC politics is 'education, education'

The ONLY reason education, of which less than 10% of the dollars nationwide for k-12 come from the feds, is a constant topic is because it is a hot button emotional issue that has one solution and no one wants to admit it.

To wit: Kids, the vast majority, will do poorly or well soley based on how their home life is, rules, discipline and expectations. Anything outside of that single parameter is the exception. You know this 'Mr. Raise Your Own Damn Kid, No Filters on Library Computers'.

Shall we discuss the smartest, most educated people in the world, St. Bill 'n Hill and ther magic they performed in Arkansas?

So Shrub, a suppossed idiot, did better in Texas than the Education Saints did in Arkansas. how CAN this be? You can look it up. More proof of the overblown importance of education as a political weapon.

I will judge W on three things: Cutting taxes because they are still way to high, killing our enemies because they started it and begining to get rid of the greatest socio-economic threat this nation has ever faced: Social Security/Medicaire.

In the mean time he can tell y'all whatever it is you want to hear about education because you will only believe what you want anyway.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
What scares me is what Bertha said.
" I just voted for him because he was the Democrat. "

Sarcasm isn't your strong suit, I guess.

Something interesting for you, ST:

DID YOU KNOW that while the US lost 100,000 jobs in August (plastered on the front page of most major newspapers, you couldn't have missed it), it gained almost 150,000 (buried in the body of the article, if presented at all)?

Now you, like I, were probably thinking the unemployment rate was skyrocketing. And who could blame you? That's what the news guys were saying. But the unemployment rate actually dropped during that time period. How can that be?

This should interest you because it's the whole story, as opposed to the partial story that spins public perception the way the media wants it spun. So you'll forgive me if I run down the Texas stats and see if there isn't a little more to it than was presented by the Washington Post and the Libs at the Teachers Association.

Wait, I lied. I'm not going to run down the stats because I don't really care. I didn't vote for George Bush based on his educational goals. Nor did I think it was a good idea for him to even mention it during the campaign, considering he'd have absolutely no control over it and wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

This should interest you because it's the whole story, as opposed to the partial story that spins public perception the way the media wants it spun. So you'll forgive me if I run down the Texas stats and see if there isn't a little more to it than was presented by the Washington Post and the Libs at the Teachers Association.

Wait, I lied. I'm not going to run down the stats because I don't really care. I didn't vote for George Bush based on his educational goals. Nor did I think it was a good idea for him to even mention it during the campaign, considering he'd have absolutely no control over it and wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway.

Well, the stats were pulled right from the source (with sources cited), can't get much "unbiased" than that. But since you already dismissed them and won't look at the list, obviosly you would know if they were really valid or not.

My bringing up the stats were partly due to this comment by Bru:
"Hey Bertha... you say you looked at Clinton's record as Governor of Arkansas to make your decision about voting for him? Since Arkansas ranked near the bottom in just about every category a state is measured in except poverty (where they were near the top of the list), what about Clinton's record made you want to vote for him? It sure couldn't have been his record on children's matters, education, health care, etc. The state was ranked about 49th in those categories."

So apparantly Bru doesn't go by what people have done (or not done) in the past, so I'm curious how he bases his decision?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Sarcasm isn't your strong suit, I guess.

Since there was no sarcasm, I can see where you wouldn't see it

It just turns my stomach to hear someone say "I voted for the president because he was of my political party"

This is exactly what is wrong with American logic.

Sure, I don't personally think Bush has done a great Job. but I'm not going to sit here and say "I'll vote for ANY democrat before I vote for Bush!"
At least with Bush, I know what to expect (or not to expect, whichever the case may be) it would take a pretty strong showing by a democrat to get my vote

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Since there was no sarcasm, I can see where you wouldn't see it

It just turns my stomach to hear someone say "I voted for the president because he was of my political party"

Dear, Bertha was being sarcastic when she posted that. That's what you get for just skimming posts.

I didn't say I mistrusted your sources. I just said that I want the whole story. Are the teachers' salaries low because the cost of living in Texas is low? Do students not receive a high school diploma because they're taking a GED? Who knows? But I'm becoming a lot more suspicious of "stats" than I used to be. If some poller called both Bertha and me and asked if we approved of Bush, we'd both say "No" but for very different reasons. Rather than pure numbers, I'm interested in knowing WHY the numbers are there.

I'll tell you exactly why I voted for George Bush: He wasn't Al Gore. And it's that simple. Had nothing to do with any campaign promises or the No Child Left Behind thing.

 

[Bruzilla]

I only voted for Bush for one reason... Guns! Yes, I do have a litmus test for candidates and that is it!

The reason I mentioned stats was that Bertha said "I paid attention to both Pres. Bush (I) and Bill Clinton during the campaign. I read about Clinton as Arkansas governor. It was easier to decide not to vote for the president than it was to vote for Clinton. I didn't instantly make up my mind about him merely because he was the Democratic nominee." And I was wondering what she could have read about Clinton's tenure in Arkansas that would lead one to think he would be better than Bush Sr?

Were the Clintons looking out for Joe Six-Pack? He sure could make them think so because he was always passing some feel-good measures that made them feel like they were doing better, but the state was at the bottom of the heap in just about every category but poverty. So to me, Bertha's comments would be like someone saying they are going to vote for Dennis Kucinich based on his record as mayor of Cleveland (a city that he ran into bankruptcy.)

Clinton did just as miserable a job with the US economy that he did in Arkansas. Once you peel away the revenues from the technology market, the Internet bubble, and fake reports from corporations, the economy was in trouble for quite a while... problems were just papered over. Clinton's trade agreements, obsession with workplace regulations, and favors to unions drove scores of businesses and jobs away. All it took was consumers to realize that they didn't need to spend another $3,000 on a new computer that was slightly faster than their old one; and for investors to realize that the internet stocks they were buying were really worthless; and voila! The jig is up!

But I digress... The point is that I would just like to know how anyone could look at Clinton's record in AK and think he'ld be the best choice for President? Personally, I think Bertha's Yellow Dog Democrat answer seems more like the unfettered truth.

 

[Bertha Venation]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Personally, I think Bertha's Yellow Dog Democrat answer seems more like the unfettered truth.

all you want; I'd appreciate it if you would allow me to be the arbiter of truth in what I write.

ST, it was sarcasm. If you'd read my earlier posts entirely you might have been aware of that.

More later.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
all you want; I'd appreciate it if you would allow me to be the arbiter of truth in what I write.

ST, it was sarcasm. If you'd read my earlier posts entirely you might have been aware of that.

More later.

ah ok... Sadly, many say this and aren't kidding around. Hell, if the devil came up and said he was a republican, was pro gun, pro death penalty, anti-abortion, he would have several votes from people on here soly on his party affiliation.

 

[Larry Gude]

For the record...

...I did not vote for W.

If he doesn't start working on social security, banning partial birth abortion and allowing the 'assault' weapons ban expire he had better do a damn good job in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran or I won't vote for him this coming time either.

The record, however, still stands; public education under George W. Bush was better in Texas than public education in Arkansas under the Clintons.

Personally, I would enjoy the current Clinton resurrection in politics great and small so we can all be reminded what an absolutely empty resume he has as an elected public servant.

Bill Clinton was elected on his charm and magnetism. He wasted even that.

 

[SmallTown]

Re: For the record...

Originally posted by Larry Gude

The record, however, still stands; public education under George W. Bush was better in Texas than public education in Arkansas under the Clintons.

No, they were equally in the toilet.

 

[Bertha Venation]

In 1992 I wasn't the political junkie I am now. (Hell, I wasn't half the woman I am now.) I didn't follow the news, read the papers, pay attention to Washington, the way I do now. I didn't have a handle on Bill Clinton's records in the House (brief as it was) or as Arkansas AG or governor. I was impressed with the way he went to Arkansans after being voted out as governor.

Bill Clinton presented a face that had been lacking in twelve years of Reagan/Bush: a man who clearly liked the people he led. He was voted out as governor of Arkansas after two terms, and traveled the state asking people why. Not so much advisors or pundits or other politicians; it was citizens he had governed who tossed him out, so he did the right thing and asked them what he had done wrong. This is what impressed me most about him, getting my attention to the point that I'd consider voting for him.

Say what you will; charismatic people are very attractive. A candidate can use that trait to get attention where others can't; hopefully s/he will make his/her policies known, and the voters can judge on those rather than the charisma. (A well-known current gubernatorial candidate who posesses the former but not the latter comes to mind.)

I took note of Clinton's intelligence, his political savvy, his desire to change the health care system, his economic ideas, his environmental promises (in that regard I was glad he chose Gore as RM). I was also happy to cast my vote for someone who had actively protested the war in Viet Nam.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Bertha Venation
Say what you will; charismatic people are very attractive. A candidate can use that trait to get attention where others can't

I wish other Democrats would say that instead of going on and on about what a great leader Clinton was. Or trying to pretend he's "the most moral man in America".

I will confess and tell you that I found Clinton very charismatic, too. Hillary has all the appeal of the bottom of a catbox but Bill just had this way about him. Larry pukes when I say this but remember when Clinton played the sax on Leno? At the end of his performance, he kind of ducked his head at the applause in a very self-deprecatory way. It was adorable!

But then the Gennifer Flowers stuff came out. And the "I didn't inhale". And the draft-dodger letter. And then he started reminding me of several scuzzy ex-boyfriends and that was it.

I was diggin' on Perot until he flaked out. So Bush it was.

But, Bertha, I must correct you. Bush was a cold fish but Reagan was VERY charismatic. That's about the only thing he had in common with Clinton - they really enjoyed people. Sit and chat with the barber, chat with the voters. The only unfriendly thing about Reagan was his wife.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Hell, if the devil came up and said he was a republican, was pro gun, pro death penalty, anti-abortion, he would have several votes from people on here soly on his party affiliation.

He'd have my vote regardless of his party affiliation. But only if he tossed in "strong on national security" as a kicker. And I'd trade anti-abortion for reduced taxes.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I wish other Democrats would say that instead of going on and on about what a great leader Clinton was. Or trying to pretend he's "the most moral man in America".

I'm starting to think you hang around the wrong democrats. All of the democrats I know speak about Clinton the way Bertha does.


Bush Sr. was a lump on a log.

Reagan was good.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
All of the democrats I know speak about Clinton the way Bertha does.

All the ones I know try desperately to come up with something this guy accomplished (besides getting laid). I appreciate honesty and if you voted for someone because they're cute, just say so.