SuperJerk

Is not specifically political, therefore it is vague enough that it may open the door to teaching creationism or "evolution is just a theory" talk in college, which is insane and should be left to the likes of Bob Jones Uni. Evolution is a mystery, slow changes no one sees.

I love the wording on this. Very loophole friendly. As in (not actual quotes): "I said we BELIEVE he had them, not that he actually had them." or "Depends on what your definition of 'reconstituted' is."

I work in Kansas, but live in Missouri. Work in one state, live in another? I guess that makes sense in this particular situation, since Missouri and Kansas are so close that a city called KANSAS CITY would be in Missouri. What's up with that anyway? Sounds retarded that the city of a state does not reside in said state. There actually is a Kansas City, KS. Its rather small, though. Both Kansas City and the state of Kansas were named after the Kanza Indians. The city wasn't named after the state, but rather both the city and the state were named after the same thing. There's also a Kansas City in Oregon and Tennessee, but the one in Missouri is the largest.

If you make the distinction between WMDs (a broad term) and nukes (a specific kind of WMD), then I can say that I do not recall Bush ever actually saying that Iraq had nukes. I think a lot of people just assumed Bush meant nukes when he talked about WMDs, since he also talked about uranium. I think the most shocking thing about that article was: The hell...?

Of course, there's good unions and bad unions. I think the reason teachers unions get a bad name is because of stuff like this that happens probably quite often in large cities.

My new username is an inside joke from another board. Over there, many would just call me "Bob", though.

I think politicians are too obsessed with where they fall on an imaginary line. While overall I consider myself a liberal, I know there have been plenty of times when I've disagreed with the "liberal establishment". Just because an idea has an origin with conservatives doesn't make it bad. The country would be a lot better off if politicians would stick to talking about the merit of specific ideas, rather than positioning their opponents on a line that most people don't even understand anyways. I like President Bush a lot better when he's out there trying to sell people on the merits of his Social Security plan, rather than when he was out there telling people not to vote for Kerry because he was a "liberal". People criticizing Bush for being to far right aren't doing themselves any favors, since they're not actually giving a reason. They're just labelling, and expecting the negative stigma attached to the label do the work for them.

It is better to attack a country BEFORE they have WMD than it is to try and attack them afterwards. Yes, of course. You're 100% right on this point. However, I thought when we went into Iraq we thought Iraq DID already have them. Bush argued that Saddam DIDN'T have nuclear weaponry yet and we couldn't afford to wait for him to get them. The concern was not him using them, but him selling them. No offense, but I seem to recall that differently. I'll look into this before commenting further on Iraq.

Nah. I'm the guy you'd call to bitch at. In fact, if you have Verizon, I'd be one of the guys you'd call to bitch at when something goes wrong. I deal with PA and that area specifically. My first step on the path to training. -=Mike Mike, I misjudged you. You sound like an alright kind of guy. **extends olive leaf**

I suggest you read some blogs like Instapundit, who will occasionally go into stories about highly-deserving conservative intellectuals not getting a position they deserve to a liberal prof fighting it. There are a lot of conservative intellectuals who want to teach the youth and aren't permitted to do so. Mike's right. I had a few college professors who were pretty conservative, but I went to a small college. I have no doubt there are larger universities where the bias persists. There is also a very vocal conservative intelligensia in this country, Jingus, which includes people like Condeleeza Rice, who provide the theoretical justification for conservative positions. This is ironic considering how much conservatives have complained for the last 40 years about elitist liberal intellectuals.

It is better to attack a country BEFORE they have WMD than it is to try and attack them afterwards. Yes, of course. You're 100% right on this point. However, I thought when we went into Iraq we thought Iraq DID already have them. No, of course invading North Korea is a bad idea. But, in my opinion, so was invading Iraq. I'm not saying we should invade North Korea, I'm saying we should not have invaded Iraq.

Let’s just imagine what the (NOUN) might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less (ADJECTIVE), what are the (NOUN) likely to be? Well there’s going to be a (ADJECTIVE) majority, so they’ll (VERB) some significant (NOUN) over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with (NOUN). Now they don’t particularly like (NOUN), but they don’t want to (VERB PHRASE) with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under (NOUN), that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with (NOUN). Good times.

I think the point of the criticism of Bush in this thread is that Iraq was hardly the biggest threat to us, so drawing their name first in the "Here We Come to Take Your WMDs" sweepstakes maybe wasn't the sharpest move.

There seems to be a big gap between the point of the bill and what it actually does.

Man, you're just asking for it on that one, aren't you? Oh geez, my dad could bitch for HOURS about the teachers union. Since I actually do belong to the Kansas chapter of the NEA, here's your chance to let a member know what you think. I would like to know your opinion of the unions, RJ. I am going to be a teacher after one more year of grad school. Teachers unions are basically going to give you one real reason to join: malpractice insurance. They'll only pay your legal bills if you're found not guilty, though. Not too long ago we lived in the dark ages where teachers didn't earn a living wage because the job was looked down on. Teaching is one place where you'd need a union because salaries and benefits are set by elected boards rather than market forces. The modern teacher's union puts political pressure on state legislatures, rather than the employer themselves. One definite beneficial thing about the teachers' union in general is that its the only group that represents the point of view of the teachers, rather than the popular misconceptions about education that are popular with the public right now (that's a WHOLE different subject). I work in Kansas, but live in Missouri.

Candice will probably get a raise by the end of the week.

This falls under the "good luck enforcing it" category.

Translation: expect me in Playboy within a year. Real Translation: I already did Playoby, I need to film some porn with RobotJerk.

Man, you're just asking for it on that one, aren't you? Oh geez, my dad could bitch for HOURS about the teachers union. Since I actually do belong to the Kansas chapter of the NEA, here's your chance to let a member know what you think.

I restate my official position: I don't think he should be fired for comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis, because that's his opinion. I do think he should be fired for contradicting historical facts.

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries? Are the US, North Korea, and Iran the only countries in the world, though? I'm sure there's plenty of countries in the world that already have nukes that I don't trust. And yet, we're not going after them. Hence my question about what the criteria was. The bedrock of nuclear non-proliferation hasn't changed since I posted it an hour and a half ago. It's still the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I was justifying why I asked the question in the first place, not re-asking the question.

All I can say is: Thank goodness for teacher's unions. *waits for typical right-wing response*

Ask yourself something, do you really trust Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons? Do you honestly equate the US as being just as dangerous possesing such weapons? Can you admit a logical difference in intentions between the countries? Are the US, North Korea, and Iran the only countries in the world, though? I'm sure there's plenty of countries in the world that already have nukes that I don't trust. And yet, we're not going after them. Hence my question about what the criteria was.