America 2004... Politics, demographics, etc.

First, thanks for the prayers. I can feel all of them and the are very much appreciated. My strong 'Judeo-Christian' faith is really being tested, but I know God will, will be done.

Note that my use of the word "faith" is intentional. Discussions and debates about religions, churches, etc. are fun, interesting, educational, but in the end they are all fa

Geez!!! I don't like to use the word hate (much too strong for most commentary or positions), but this forum software is really testing my patience. It sometimes takes in excess of five minutes to get a response, and then, it may or may not be the action that was selected
===============

Chronicle comment was intended as a 'jab' at you for your position that the paper is conservative.

Yes, I guess the Chronicle would appear conservative -- from your position. However, to most of us that are closer to the center with our political views, the Chronicle appears slightly left of center. Overall, for a major city newspaper, the articles are fairly reasonable. Note that opinion and commentary sections are just that. NOT news or political positions.

I guess by using your reasons for calling the Chronicle conservative, the LA Times is also ultra conservative? After all, it is owned by [arguably] one of the most conservative companies on the face of the planet, Tribune Company. Ha, they do have burden to bear though as they also own the Cubs
Columbia Journalism Review, Who Owns What

The radiation treatments have caused some deterioration in my vision and after re-reading my post, they are pretty bad. and spell check doesn't help when I use the wrong word (the/they/them) and it is spelled correctly

Anyone that ever participated in a chat room on any subject, serious or frivolous, becomes very good at tpyoese.

Even reading bulletin boards and forums on line is much the same.

Anyway, just good to see ya are up to participating at all.

Bring on the typos.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Dave K is definitely liberal, sometimes obstinately so, but as most liberals go he's fairly mild mannered. If you spent any time at NYT or the old CNN forums you would realize that. He showed remarkable restraint when it was Bo Boggs that went over the top and was rude a few days ago. Let's not let politics get in the way of manners.

We differ more than a bit, James

Although Bo got a little crude with his comment, it was a response to a very arrogant post by Dave

Anyhow, thanks for the welcome and I pray that I will be around long enough to see how this election cycle comes out. I am pretty sure Bush will win, but the Democrat propaganda/lie machine still has lots of time to play games with the truth It used to be that the kind of stuff I am hearing typically came from the Democrat Underground or Social Democrat groups, but now it in the main stream Democrats. To me, the "Bush Lied" group sounds like children arguing over toys

Hi, Louis.

>>To me, the "Bush Lied" group sounds like children arguing over toys <<
Now MAYBE you have some idea how the "Clinton lied" stuff struck those on the other side -- except that was about extraneous personal "stuff," while Bush and co. are routinely lying about the vital interests of our country. The old Amerind expression is "cheat me once, shame on you; cheat me twice, shame on me." By that standard we're up to multiple shames on the American public by now!

BTW, I'm perplexed as to how a post saying "we're both partially right" can be construed as arrogant...

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Clinton DID lie and it is well documented and, IMO, he was probably lying every time he opened his mouth

As for "Bush Lied", I am still looking... Yes, there were some mistakes, errors, etc. by both him and a lot of others. Lots of problems in the previous administration, too. This blame-game some of the Democrats are playing is probably one of the dumbest things I have seen.

As for who started all this animosity, regardless of what you think, in a couple of news groups I am in, the historians place that squarely on the Democrats for trashing Judge Bork. You can continue to have YOUR opinions, but many others don't agree with you.

As for >>> BTW, I'm perplexed as to how a post saying "we're both partially right" can be construed as arrogant... <<<

Well, right ballgame, wrong inning. These are a couple of the comments I was commenting on:

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=13100&messageID=195053

Politics aside, the logical interpretation is that your wife's district is NOT in compliance with the "No Child Left Behind Act," and will eventually have to pay the piper for noncompliance.

So with all respect to your wife, you're both wrong, Bo.

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=13100&messageID=196530

How typical of conservatives to see issues in black and white, when the reality is a shade of gray.

That's about as arrogant and condescending as a person can get.

The contradiction therein?

By saying that my wife's district was NOT in compliance and that we were both WRONG, he made a black and white issue of it.

After linking to the act proving that he war wrong, his reply was to say we were both right and then shift the topic. After making the gratuitious comment about conservatives not being able to see shades of gray.

Bo

Hi, Louis.

What's supposed to happen in this venue is a dialogue. During the course of truly open discussions, people often change their minds about things. Apparently you and Bo interpret "you're both wrong" to refer to my supposition in a previous message that her district was out of compliance. In fact, the wording in the earlier part of the second message you cite makes it clear that I changed my mind about that -- but that doesn't bear on the fact that the vast majority of districts have not devoted the reources of time and money to develop a special test for Special Ed students, but instead use the same test for all. That was the context of the end of the message, to which Bo took umbrage.

As for black and white vs. shades of gray, taking shades of gray into account is the basis of situational ethics, for which I'm routinely excoriated by the conservatives here every time moral/ethical standards come up. If y'all stop insisting on absolute moral standards, I'll stop insisting y'all only consider "black and white" alternatives.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

both comments were in the same message. And in fact were coupled.

That clearly meant that my wife's assertion that alternative assessments were legal was wrong and that she was breaking the law to use them.

Nowhere have I heard you admit that that accusation was in error.

Who pays for the development of the alternative assessments as well as the general assessments is a separate issue.

Bo

Hi, Bo.

>>Nowhere have I heard you admit that that accusation was in error<<
How about in this message: "it sounds like we're both right. Sounds as if an interested district can get permission to use specially designed tests."

But, contrary to your claim, the source of funding for the special tests is far from irrelevant -- it takes a lot of resources to develop tests, in terms of both time and money. Special ed teachers across the nation are complaining that their students are being forced to take the regular test, as the link from the Tennessean attests (you know, the one you have yet to acknowledge?) So either hundreds of special ed teachers are lying, or we have a big problem -- what can be done is irrelevant in places where it isn't done!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

is a long way from 'I was wrong'.

You implied that my wife was breaking the law and would have to suffer the consequences. You clearly stated that we were both wrong.

Your next sentence indicates that you now know that the practice in my wife's district is legal. That indicates that you WERE CLEARLY WRONG!

NOW ADMIT IT!

Bo

BTW until that post you referenced above, the question of funding the development was never mentioned. Only the legality of alternative assessment was.

Hi, Clay.

How about making a promise (not a campaign promise, but in an open forum to a group of other countries) and then making no effort to fulfill it? Is that a lie? If so, Bush promised $15 billion in AIDS aid to African nations, but requested only about 10% of that level from Congress. Whether a lie or not, it's just another reason why other nations no longer trust our word the way they once did, and that directly affects our diplomatic capabilities.

Then there's his false campaign promise to govern in a bipartisan fashion. You'd think someone who didn't even win the popular vote would do that as a matter of course, but instead he's run one of the most bitterly partisan Administrations in many, many years -- MUCH more so than Clinton.

As for lying under oath, Ollie North was CONVICTED of PERJURY and yet is a darling of the conservative movement -- the old double standard in action again?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I rarely hear anything about Ollie North anymore, except when Dave Konkel tosses his name out there. What's Ollie up to lately anyway?

I think he has a radio show now...

Are you looking at the total amount of aid given or just that for medicines to treat HIV infections?

First, all lies are NOT equal. You're SUPPOSED to lie about a BJ. You're not necessarily supposed to get one... but once it's a done deal you are supposed to lie. It's the only thing you can do. Hokay? So unless you're gon'a convict him for GETTING the BJ, you're kind'a forced by chivalry and plain old politeness to congratulate him for sticking to his story.

Second, not all courts of law are equal. If the Grand High Exalted Inquisitor spends five hundred million taxpayer dollars trying to make the witch float, and all he comes up with is a BJ... who in tarnation cares WHAT you say to him?

Yall must have to squeeze the old indignation pretty hard to feel so very righteous about this one. Especially when comparing consequences to all the NeoCon crap lately.

You are correct Bob, not all lies are the same. Those told under oath in a court of law carry a special weight.

You are incorrect as to who Bill told the lie to under what circumstances. Calm down and realize that it was an Arkansas (federal) judge who later found him in contempt of court for giving "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process". This wasn't a private chit chat with Starr.

We should all be polite and congratulate Clinton on his BJ? Even Hillary might think otherwise!

Enough of the neocommie aid to the enemy crap too. Sadr is like 30 years old. He probably hasn't a clue about Vietnam, and yet he is parroting the esteemed Teddy Kennedy these days. Those same tactics that got us to cut out of Vietnam. I've always said I'm too young to comment on that war. Well, thanks to Kerry, I have now had many months to learn a whole heckuvalot about how we "lost" that war. If we lose this one it will be because the same anti-American forces succeed in undermining our country

Evie

We've been over and over this. I feel that pressing that impeachment and the whole witch hunt that led up to it was the most nauseating and embarrassing display of smallness and the dark side of power that I have ever witnessed. The whole world saw it for what it was. Everybody but yall. And then Newt had to step down. And Bob Livingston, and I don't remember who all else. How can yall be so stubborn as to still embrace this? That was not a court of law. It was a court of hate, and a court of cheating. There just never was anything there except yall and your hate.

And so here yall still are. Wrong as can be and exposed, but still hating.

Just my opinion of course. Nobody ever changes their mind 'round here, and you can't help feeling the way you do. Nor can I.

Who's talking about the impeachment? I'm talking about the Paula Jones lawsuit. Are you trying to imply that Paula Jones should not have been allowed to sue her superior for harrassment? In what other situations do you think people should be denied due process? Forget Monica, forget the impeachment, forget the presidential TV appearances denying promiscuity. Whether or not Ms. Jones actually had a viable case or not she had the right to bring her case to a court of law and she had the reasonable expectation to receive due process. If you think that's nauseating then you're in the wrong country.

Also, Clay, "Jane Doe #5" has finally come forth and talked to the press. This was not a case of a "BJ", as he calls it but a case of forcible rape. Of course she thought it wise to remain silent for a long time. Considering branding an accuser "trailer pack trash", IRS audits, what happened to the nurse who confirmed her story (especially, if not stunningly, nasty) and such, I don't blame her.
BTW, Jane Doe #5 was a Democratic fundraiser, in case Dave K. tries to smear her with some name implying that she is a conservative or Republican. Of course, this revaling of her name and her telling of her story got about the same amount of press coverage as the current Byrd KKK situation.

On that tight point, you are right. Nobody should be above the law and Paula Jones deserved her day. She did wait a looong time to ask for it, but she deserved it. And Clinton was a horn-dawg. And he lied right out loud, under oath. I guess what I really question is whether it was justice he obstructed or inquisition.

I think Bob needed that Guardian Angel mod on the first post

Evie