Pat, do yourself a big favor. Please don't go there. Cause if you do, you'll be sorry that you did!


Know what's really amazing here? I started this thread about the horrible act of Iran Recruiting Suicide Bombers to Attack AMERICAN interests! Yet you have not addressed or given your feelings about that TOPIC ITSELF! You've brought up every other world issue, but I have yet to hear about how you ACTUALLY feel about the threat of these actions being carried out AGAINST Amercians by IRAN!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]I've answered you TWICE already. This is the last time:
"I'd keep my eye on Iran and North Korea like there was no tomorrow."

BTW, I'm not the one taking it anywhere, bud. -Pat

I've answered you TWICE already. This is the last time:
"I'd keep my eye on Iran and North Korea like there was no tomorrow."

-Pat [/b][/QUOTE]


Pat, why can't you comprehend my question? I did not ask in this post WHAT you would do ( that was another post ) I am asking what you feel about IRAN treatening to take these actions against the USA! WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT THEM DOING THIS!!!!!!!


Don Cardi

Considering Iran doesn't like us, what did you expect? What do you want me to say about it? It's their beliefs and they believe that terrorism is right, just like we believe democracy is right. -Pat

Considering Iran doesn't like us, what did you expect? What do you want me to say about it? It's their beliefs and they believe that terrorism is right, just like we believe democracy is right. -Pat [/quote]What do I want you to say about it? As an American citizen and more importantly as a member of the Human race, if you have the slightest amount of decency, which you claim to have when it comes to feeding the poor over in sudan, you would denounce such an act as a barbaric act!!! What the hell is it with you liberals? You people are always trying to understand a terrorists reason for doing what they do. There is NO trying to understand and then reason with a f**k*ng terrorist! When the hell are you and your liberal leftist friends going to realize this! Know what, you are all a bunch of hypocrites! You want to bash and denounce our soldiers for having a prisoner put a pair of panties on thier heads, you scream for an investigation when something like that happens, then in the same friggin breath, you refuse to denounce a country that is looking to blow up your people! You want to try and understand why they are doing this! What you don't seem to understand is that these people couldn't give a rats ass if you are a liberal, a republican, a conservative, a democrat, or whatever. All they see is that you are from the western world, that you are NOT of thier beliefs or faith, and that we are The Satan! Their main mission in life is to annihilate any non extremist that does not share thier beliefs! They hate you and me! Bottom line! They think that there will be 72 virgins waiting for them if they kill the non - believers and scarfice thier own life at the same time! That alone should tell you what sick animals these bastards are, and that there is absolutely no understanding them, or reasoning with that kind of a sick mind! Yet you refuse to face the reality of thier wanting to destroy us! Instead, like the liberal administration of the nineties, you believe that if we leave them alone and don't make them mad at us, they will go away! What a cowardly way of dealing with this problem! Hey, a member of this board came right out and said that they would have absolutely no problem using terrorist tactics and blowing up people if they had to. And what did you say to that? NOTHING! Yet when I posted about sending some things to OUR soldiers, or posted a story about the soldier who tried to explain to his kid why he had to go to war, you immedeatly responded to those posts and ripped them apart! Yes, when I see you liberals keeping your mouths shut about issues like these suicide bombers, or people stating that they would use terrorist tactics, but only opening your mouth about our own soldiers or leaders if they happen to do something wrong, YES, I QUESTION YOUR PATRIOTISM! What a damn disgrace!


Don Cardi

I was using your logic of "one war is enough" to make your point look as silly as it really is.

Both committed genocide...

Hmm...that's what the intelligence said. Then again, maybe our intellgence that you have no faith in is wrong in Iran or N. Korea, too?

Maybe Bush and the media are lying! After all, according to you, GWB thinks with war on his mind, and the media is completely conservatively-biased. It's probably a conspiracy to get us into another war, Pat. :rolleyes:

No, I didn't. But it would seem like something you would say, since you're "logic" links Bostonian Minutemen and Iraqi insurgents. :rolleyes:

Just...bring...it.

Double-J,

He takes apart his own country, his own soldiers, his own administrations war on terror! But when another member posted that they supported terrorist tactics and would have no problem carrying them out themselves, he didn't say a damn word to them about it! What does that tell you about him? Think about it!


Don Cardi

Bush did not need to invade Iraq for it was no threat at all. Saddam lied about the WMDs just to make himself look strong in the eyes of the Iranians, who actually do have WMDs. If Bush wanted to start a damn war, the smart thing to do would be going after a real threat like Iran. However, especially now with the troops seriously bogged down in Iraq, he would never do that. The Iranians will use their nukes and bring about casualties far worse than this current war. Bush apparently only likes to mess with enemies that are chicken shit.

Oh, here's a country that actually had something to do with 9/11 (not Iraq, that's for sure). Saudi Arabia. Okay, we wiped out the Taliban in Afghanistan but the root of the damn problem is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royals seem to fund everything, including terrorists. However, they also fund the Bush family so Bush will never go after the real problem.

Considering Iran doesn't like us, what did you expect? What do you want me to say about it? It's their beliefs and they believe that terrorism is right, just like we believe democracy is right. -Pat [/quote]What do I want you to say about it? As an American citizen and more importantly as a member of the Human race, if you have the slightest amount of decency, which you claim to have when it comes to feeding the poor over in sudan, you would denounce such an act as a barbaric act!!! What the hell is it with you liberals? You people are always trying to understand a terrorists reason for doing what they do. There is NO trying to understand and then reason with a f**k*ng terrorist! When the hell are you and your liberal leftist friends going to realize this! Know what, you are all a bunch of hypocrites! You want to bash and denounce our soldiers for having a prisoner put a pair of panties on thier heads, you scream for an investigation when something like that happens, then in the same friggin breath, you refuse to denounce a country that is looking to blow up your people! You want to try and understand why they are doing this! What you don't seem to understand is that these people couldn't give a rats ass if you are a liberal, a republican, a conservative, a democrat, or whatever. All they see is that you are from the western world, that you are NOT of thier beliefs or faith, and that we are The Satan! Their main mission in life is to annihilate any non extremist that does not share thier beliefs! They hate you and me! Bottom line! They think that there will be 72 virgins waiting for them if they kill the non - believers and scarfice thier own life at the same time! That alone should tell you what sick animals these bastards are, and that there is absolutely no understanding them, or reasoning with that kind of a sick mind! Yet you refuse to face the reality of thier wanting to destroy us! Instead, like the liberal administration of the nineties, you believe that if we leave them alone and don't make them mad at us, they will go away! What a cowardly way of dealing with this problem! Hey, a member of this board came right out and said that they would have absolutely no problem using terrorist tactics and blowing up people if they had to. And what did you say to that? NOTHING! Yet when I posted about sending some things to OUR soldiers, or posted a story about the soldier who tried to explain to his kid why he had to go to war, you immedeatly responded to those posts and ripped them apart! Yes, when I see you liberals keeping your mouths shut about issues like these suicide bombers, or people stating that they would use terrorist tactics, but only opening your mouth about our own soldiers or leaders if they happen to do something wrong, YES, I QUESTION YOUR PATRIOTISM! What a damn disgrace!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]I thought we were clear on where I stood regarding our soldiers. I DON'T support the Iraq War. I DO support our soldiers. <---------- Just because I'd rather give money to the poor instead of extra benefits to our soldiers doesn't mean that I don't support them. Get that through your skull. I can't believe that you think if someone doesn't donate to the military that they're not supporting the troops.

How am I 'defending terrorists?' I'm defending human rights. Our soldiers aren't just putting 'panties on the heads' of these POWs. They're being sexually abusive, detaining them for months in extreme weather, and weakening them psychologically so that they can make interrogations 'easier.' There's a fine line between defending a human right and a terrorist. All those terrorists that are beheading people and are still out loose and remain a threat, then I hope they we catch or kill them, but our soldiers are doing this to people who surrendered and are no longer a threat. The caught terrorists will get their days in prison and then in hell.

You're criticizing me for being a liberal, but at the same time, saying that it doesn't matter if I'm a liberal, conservative, etc. Now who is being the hypocrite?

DC--You need to listen to what I have to say before you start going out with the name calling and accusing me of stances that I don't take. I think that as soon as you hear that one liberal is saying something, you assume that all liberals feel that way, which is impossible, since we all have a mind and make our own judgements on issues.

Don't question my patriotism. Just because I believe that our government should do things one way and you another, doesn't give you the right to question my stance on my country. We're the best country in the world and even I wouldn't stoop to the level of saying you're a disgrace to the country, as you have said about me. -Pat

I wonder if anyone ever told you lefties that hindsight is 20/20? You boys are awful good at pointing out the military "errors" of the administration, and seem to have the answers to all of our world problems.

How come you guys aren't running for office?

And after 9/11, Bush is supposed to ignore intelligence, confirmed by other nations, that Iraq has weapons, is continuing genocide, and is planning some kind of anti-US attack?

I love how the left is pacifist until it suits them. I thought you were against war?

Against America? Whom?


You admit we are bogged down in the war two lines before this statement, and then proceed to call these insurgents "chicken shit."

So which are they? Chicken shit, or guerrilla thugs who have us bogged down?

I agree.

It's a good thing I'm not in charge. For every beheading, I would've lined up 20 of the POW's, and executed them. Quell their little rebellion.

I could care less about these people who are trying to kill our troops. I love how the United States is expected to be held to these high humane standards when our enemies clearly could care less about human life, let alone Geneva Convention standards.

So you're saying that the country of Iraq compares to the the Ottomans/Germans (World War I) and Nazi-Germany, Japan, and Italy (World War II)?

Genocide? That's happening in Sudan too, yet that doesn't seem to bother you nor do you think it's a reason to put troops in Sudan. Also, Hitler killed by the millions. Saddam killed by the thousands, give or take. Comparing Hitler to Saddam is historically inaccurate and is a horrible argument.

Who do you think is more of a threat? Kim Jong Il or Saddam (before being captured)?

Maybe Bush and the media are lying! After all, according to you, GWB thinks with war on his mind, and the media is completely conservatively-biased. It's probably a conspiracy to get us into another war, Pat. :rolleyes:

Then don't compare the Ottomans and Germans from World War I to the insurgents of Iraq for your defense.

I've been bringing it nearly single handedly. You can't seem to be doing the same. -Pat

It's a good thing I'm not in charge. For every beheading, I would've lined up 20 of the POW's, and executed them. Quell their little rebellion.

I could care less about these people who are trying to kill our troops. I love how the United States is expected to be held to these high humane standards when our enemies clearly could care less about human life, let alone Geneva Convention standards. [/quote]So you think we should line up captured insurgents (who are no longer a threat) and shoot them instead of bringing justice to the families of the soldiers who have died in Iraq? -Pat

Yeah, I'll come! Can we be back by Monday morning? I have class.

Btw, we can visit Afsaneh, too.

Lest we forget Austria in WWI as well? The Triple Alliance? Read a history book, as you say I need too.

Anyways, no, I'm not saying that. I was using your "one war is enough" point to be facetious.

My reasons for not going into Sudan are simple:

1.) Tactically/Logistically foolish
2.) We have domestic issues to deal with after our troops are removed from Iraq
3.) The international community, which for the most part isn't involved in the war, should send it's troops into Sudan.

So now you're going to say that Saddam's genocide isn't as bad as Hitlers because he only killed "thousands" in comparison to Hitler's "millions?" First of all, you wouldn't know historical accuracy if it came up and bit you on the ass. Secondly, why are you rationalizing Saddam's genocide? You make it sound like "Well, he only killed thousands, Hitler killed millions, it's different."

Eliminating people through ethnic cleansing is the same, whether it's 1 person or 1 billion. Although now I can see why you support abortion, the way you're arguing about genocide.


w00t! Sarcasm alert! Sarcasm alert!

For the last time - I was being facetious to make your argument look foolish. Though clearly there is no need to do that; it's plenty silly on it's own, you don't need my help.

That's positively great English syntax. You told Iceman in this thread he had bad grammar, and in the "Dear World Sorry" thread, you told me I needed Hooked on Phonics.

I pity you, Pat.

Warmest regards,
Double-J

So you're saying that the two Iraq wars were needed as much as the two World Wars?

1.) It wouldn't be foolish if we wouldn't be in Iraq.
2.) Negative domestic issues that were caused by a President who lost nearly 2 million jobs and continues to outsource jobs.
3.) Why is it always the duty of the international community to you? Also, when the international community does put troops in there, what will your defense be then?

I'm saying that Hitler wanted to abolish a whole race and run the world. Do you think Saddam was capable of the same things as Hitler?

Answer my question. Who was more of a threat?

No, you were being very serious. You just have no defense on this clearly one sided issue that you are on the losing side of.

You continually insult me and I just take it all in. I think it's clear who is being mature about these issues. You can't debate on an issue, so what do you do? You insult and insult. Grow up. -Pat

Again, I said I was being facetious. There is no need to even continue this issue.

No shit! Then it would only be a one-front war finishing off in Afghanistan!


Or, more realistically, an economic decline beginning in the final months of the Clinton administration and 9/11.

It must be difficult to blame EVERYTHING on Bush, I mean, I would think you'd get tired of it after awhile.

1.) Because during the election, you kept talking how Kerry would unite the international community to pass a "global test" and form a mighty coalition.

Riddle me this: why does the United States have to do anything? The International Community has just as much (if not more responsibility because they aren't fighting in Iraq) to fix the Sudan problem now, rather than waiting for the US to clean it up.

As a leftist, you hate the US being the world policeman, yet you seem to take offense when I mention that Europe should get off it's ass and do something.

Dunno. I think genocide is relatively interchangeble, though. Their scope on world domination is irrelevant.


Better yet - who do you think was more of a threat when the intelligence came out? Because we know you clearly practice 20/20 hindsight.

Okay, just for good measure -

who here thinks Pat is wrong? :p

You call me a fool, tell Iceman he has bad grammar, you tell me I need Hooked on Phonics, yet, I say "I pity you" and you take it as an insult?

Please, please. Let's have the other people in this thread (and the other) weigh in and decide who has "won" these debates, I've grown weary of your rhetoric.

Regards,
Double-J

Either your reading comprehension is poor, or you choose to twist around the content of my post! I did not contradict myself with those statements whatsoever. Yes, I critisized your liberal way of thinking, that was on one issue, but when I said that it doesn't matter if your a liberal, consrvative, etc., I was reffering to how the TERRORISTS veiw you. NOT how I veiw you or your party! You need to go back and read it again and put it in the proper context of the point that I was trying to make! :rolleyes:


Don Cardi

You dug your own hole. Answer the question and don't say you were being facetious or put a sarcastic remark. You posted it and I replied, so answer.

I laugh when you conservatives complain about the way Clinton handled the economy. Here you are, pal.
"Bill Clinton inherited a $290 billion deficit and 10 million unemployed Americans when he entered office in January 1993. His initial economic plan was denounced by Republicans who never apologized with their criticism turned out to be inaccurate. The creation of 22 million new jobs and thirty-year lows in the unemployment rate during his presidency were meaningless to the Clinton-haters. Women experienced the lowest unemployment rate in thirty years and Hispanics and Blacks had the lowest unemployment rates ever recorded. The income of the of the average American family increased more than $5,000 and the number of families owning stock increased 40 percent. America went from the largest deficits to the largest surpluses in history..."

"The average workweek for production for nonsupervisory workers declined while the average hourly earnings for these same workers grew 37.1 percent, and construction jobs employed their fastest growth in fifty years, after that sector lost 662,000 jobs in the four years leading up to the Clinton presidency... Wage increases reflected their fastest and longest growth in more than thirty years, and inflation was lower than it had been during those three decades. By 1999, the federal economy was in the black, and by 2000 there was $230 billion surplus. Oh, and by the way, 15 million families had their taxes cut with the earned income tax credit. But it wasn't the Republican-favored investor class that benefited, it was families with income below $27,000, and with that 4.3 million Americans were lifted out of poverty."
Thank you, Alan Colmes!

They entered Iraq to end this genocide that you speak of, which actually started before the first Iraq War. It's a contradiction to help one nation that has had genocide and to ignore another that has even more genocide in it.

I find that insulting. Now all people on the left side of the spectrum "hate the US for being world policeman?" You're saying that all left wingers are taking this stance, which is completely false.

Answer my question. Was Saddam as big a threat at Hitler? You compared them first.

You're not getting out of the questioned I asked you, BTW, so I expect a reply. Let's see. Who do I think was more of a threat when intelligence came out. Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein? Who do you think? Kim Jong Il in a landslide.

That's now 2 posts that you've drifted off topic and refused to answer the present topic.

Yes.

Yeh, where are your tag team partners anyways?

Either your reading comprehension is poor, or you choose to twist around the content of my post! I did not contradict myself with those statements whatsoever. Yes, I critisized your liberal way of thinking, that was on one issue, but when I said that it doesn't matter if your a liberal, consrvative, etc., I was reffering to how the TERRORISTS veiw you. NOT how I veiw you or your party! You need to go back and read it again and put it in the proper context of the point that I was trying to make! :rolleyes:


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]DC--Don't back out of this debate. You entered it, now reply to the other 4 paragraphs from that post.

The bolded paragraphs are ones that you neglected to respond to.

Here we go again...
First of all, the economy under Clinton must be taken in the context of the dot com boom which began in the 90's. Investment increased at astounding rates as everyone tried to get in on the internet companies, despite the fact that these companies had poor earnings and had no real assets. If you look at the statistics from the Clinton years, the economy follows the dot com boom and eventual crash very closely. The economy grew dramatically during the years of dot com growth, but not only did this growth have nothing to do with any of Clinton's policies, it also was unsustainable. In the third quarter of 2000, under the Clinton administration, and as the dot com companies were being shut down left and right, GDP growth sunk to an abysmal -O.5%. If you want to compare the first 3 years under Clinton (before the dot com boom began in full force in the late 90's) to the first 3 years under Bush, here are some statistics:

Unemployment Rate -
Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)
Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change

It's of note that under Bush, job growth has been increasing for the past year, and the total job loss under Bush has been steadily decreasing (now down to around 800,000 since the latest Labor Department figures were released). If things continue as they have been (and there are no indicators they will not), the job losses from the Clinton recession and September 11 (1 million jobs were lost in the month after 9/11) will be erased by the end of Bush's term, perhaps even at the end of this year. To continue the comparison of Clinton's first three years to the first three years under Bush:

Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

The % of families living in poverty is lower after two years under GWBush than after two years under Bill Clinton - even lower than 7 out of 8 of Clinton's years in office.

Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -
2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)
1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)
1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

The percentage of people living in deep poverty in 2 years under Bush than in 2 years after Clinton, as well as being lower than the average after Clinton's entire term of office.

Homeownership Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)
4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: +1.1%

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)
4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: +0.7%

The homeownership rate is higher in the first 3 years under Bush than it was in the first 3 years under Clinton, and the rate has grown more under Bush than it did under Clinton.

Inflation Rate -
GWBush's 1st three years:
Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)
Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)
Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:
Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)
Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)
Difference: 0.53% Decrease

Inflation has also declined more under Bush is his first term than under Clinton.

Don't forget that GDP growth (the single MOST IMPORTANT economic indicator), has grown at its highest rate in the past 20 years, more than under Clinton at its peak during the dot com boom.

Add to this that Bush and the Republican led Congress has accomplished this economic growth in spite of the dot com collapse and the September 11 attacks, and you'll see how well the Republicans have handled the economy. Economic growth has continued to increase at record levels, job gains have been occurring for over a year straight, and inflation has been kept down. The stock market has also been growing steadily (and at a sustainable rate, unlike the dot com years).

Pat, the fact is that Republican policies advocating less government involvement in the economy have ALWAYS worked. Remember that Clinton was considered rather right wing on economic issues, and he had to deal with a Republican congress. Liberal economic policies have always failed, and led to economic stagnation. Look at the economy after LBJ brought about his Great Society programs, or for an even better picture, look at the economy under Carter, another Liberal icon. Policies of increased government control and redistribution of wealth through "taxes on the rich and tax cuts for the poor" (also known as socialism) never work, as seen by the economies of Europe, who already have the economic policies you want implemented here so badly. They have nonexistant GDP growth, unemployment of nearly 10%, and very little productivity.

Oh, and before you say "BUT BUSH HAS A DEFICIT", I'll mention that I have already said I disagree with the out of control federal spending that has led to this problem. However, increasing taxes is not the solution, cutting spending is.

Still, it was a nice try Pat .

Ok, I really don't know why you compared Bush and Clinton. I didn't say anything about Bush except his loss of nearly 2 million jobs and the deficit. I didn't compare Bush or Clinton either. I merely said that Clinton left the US in prosperity when he left the White House.

Also, you compared the first 3 years of Clinton's first term, rather then all 8 of his years. We also must remember that Clinton came into office while the Gulf War fiasco was going on.

Also, you talk about LBJ and Jimmy Carter like I idolize them. I personally didn't care for either of them. I will give LBJ credit for getting the Civil Rights Act passed though. And if I may ask, what was the source for all of these findings? -Pat

I was also addressing early postings you made in this thread mentioning the economy under Bush.

I addressed the Clinton economy (remember, DOT COM BOOM!), as well as showing how the economy grew before the boom began (first term of his presidency).

Oh, and what was the "Gulf War Fiasco"? I've never heard it called that, most people think it was an astounding success. At any rate, the Gulf War had already ended quite some time before Clinton became president.

I mentioned LBJ and Carter because they were to presidents who carried out the liberal economic agenda, which you so ardently support.

Sources:
http://www.bls.gov
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov13.html
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/...amp;Topic3id=22

At any rate, do you still think the economy is doing terrible under Bush Pat?

For families with high incomes? No. For urban families and families with generally low incomes? Yes.

I have a very biased view of the economy no matter who the President, so don't take it personal. FDR, who I idolize, took us from the Great Depression to prosperity. He had a harder job to accomplish (with the economy) then any President and he is still the best. -Pat

That doesn't make any sense Pat. The economy doesn't grow "just for the rich". You've been completely taken in by class warfare rhetoric instead of actually looking at the statistics. Oh well, it's like talking to a brick wall when I attempt to discuss this with you.

FDR did nothing to alleviate the great depression. His social programs may have made people "feel better", but it led to no real economic growth. WWII did that. I can understand idolizing FDR for his leadership, but idolizing him for passing socialist programs that are costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year just doesn't make sense to me.

The economy is better right now for the upper class of America. The county taxes were raised 33.75 % this week. The state passed an occupational priviledge tax the other day. I don't know if Bush has something to do with it, but Ed Rendell (D) definetly does. I was just starting to like him too. The towns can use it if they want and charge workers in that part of the country off of their pay check. The only county that has picked it up so far has been mine, which happens to have the 32nd worst city for crime in the US and high unemployment.

The programs that FDR passed are what I wish Bush would pass now, especially one on education. I am a loather of the NCLB Act. If it would've worked, I'd like Bush a whole lot more. Unfortunately, it hasn't been a success, especially for the urban community. -Pat

Please, show me some statistics showing the "economy is only better for the wealthy". It's just not true, and in fact makes no sense at all, since the economy doesn't "just get better for some people".

Social programs like FDR's sound great in theory, but they really don't work in practice. Education is a prime example of this. We spend more and more money on education each year, yet schools continue to do worse. Clearly, simply handing money to schools doesn't solve the problem. This is especially true when you look at how D.C., whish spends the most money per student in the country, has the worst education in the nation. Giving more and more money to social programs has never led to any improvements, yet liberals keep requesting just a little bit more, and then everything will be better. It hasn't worked for 60 years, so IMO, it's time to try something different.

Please, show me some statistics showing the "economy is only better for the wealthy". It's just not true, and in fact makes no sense at all, since the economy doesn't "just get better for some people".

Social programs like FDR's sound great in theory, but they really don't work in practice. Education is a prime example of this. We spend more and more money on education each year, yet schools continue to do worse. Clearly, simply handing money to schools doesn't solve the problem. This is especially true when you look at how D.C., whish spends the most money per student in the country, has the worst education in the nation. Giving more and more money to social programs has never led to any improvements, yet liberals keep requesting just a little bit more, and then everything will be better. It hasn't worked for 60 years, so IMO, it's time to try something different. [/QB][/quote]Why don't you come down to my city some time? I'll show you how fair and balanced the burbs and city is. :rolleyes:

I don't know how you can blame the education problem on liberals. It's a liberal and conservative problem. I don't want money handed out. I want programs made and I want Bush to make a cabinet member that can represent the youth. -Pat

The economy isn't about being "fair". It just doesn't work that way, and it never will. Tring to suggest that the wealthy (nationwide) are the only ones who's situation is improving economically right now is inaccurate, unless you provide statistics to back up your view, which you have not done.

I don't suggest the education problem is merely a liberal problem. However, the education ideas of liberals are the ones you support. These "programs" you speak of cost money, and their is no evidence that any of them have worked. Conservatives, on the other hand, at least offer some sort of alternative with school vouchers, which have proven effective in cities where they have been used. What do you think of school vouchers Pat?

The economy isn't about being "fair". It just doesn't work that way, and it never will. Tring to suggest that the wealthy (nationwide) are the only ones who's situation is improving economically right now is inaccurate, unless you provide statistics to back up your view, which you have not done.

I don't suggest the education problem is merely a liberal problem. However, the education ideas of liberals are the ones you support. These "programs" you speak of cost money, and their is no evidence that any of them have worked. Conservatives, on the other hand, at least offer some sort of alternative with school vouchers, which have proven effective in cities where they have been used. What do you think of school vouchers Pat? [/quote]A school voucher goes to one person, usually someone who is already excelling in school. I think they're poor and that something should be done with the whole school district, rather then selected people. -Pat

Wasn't this thread originally addressing the issue of Suicide Bombers in Iran?


Don Cardi

but pat based on that logic, is it fair to that one person who is doing well in school and is being held down by the school to not get help? A school district will not just turn around in one year, it will probably take 3-4 years to get it to a higher level. I don't think its fair to that "one person" to have to wait 3-4 years to get the education that he/she deserves.

School vouchers will not solve the problem, I will give you that but those kids excelling in school deserve to further their education.