SuperJerk

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_re_us/obit_snow This is sad...I can't imagine dying that young. Bold prediction: Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, et. al., will decry liberal media bias when Snow doesn't get the same treatment Tim Russert got last month.

I mean today in 2008, not how it worked in 1788. Because we now have a standing army, we can ignore the first part of the amendment while the last part stands absolute and unchallengable? We can't regulate civilians with guns, even though the constitution says we can, because we now have a standing army?

Is it my turn to slap Marvin?

I fear it'll reawaken our shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality that dominated public opinion most of the time since 9/11. Then again, I don't think the public necessarily shares our government's hard-on for going to war over Israel. Yes, its an ally and the only democracy in the region, but politicians talk about it like its the 51st state instead of a soveriegn nation with its own well-equipped military and nuclear capabilities. Anyhow...I was talking to my friend today and I mentioned how there was a concerted effort to paint Obama as a snob. He thought the idea of a bunch of rich white people hanging their strategy for winning on making a black guy look like a snob was pretty fucking funny. I replied, "Yeah, I guess they already gave up on make him look like a black militant."

I could, but I didn't because (a) I already know the answer, and (b) that's a discussion for another topic. Can anyone explain how the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment is supposed to work?

One of the Swift-Boaters has returned to back up McCain... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_.../mccain_s_buddy Must...resist...urge....to go on...another...anti-Swift Boat Vet....rant... (And in case there's any doubt that the accusations against Kerry were baseless, read this article. http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded...ar_record.html)

No argument here as far as Jackson goes. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_...andidates_gramm Rather than doing the fake righteous indignation routine everyone else is doing, I'll throw out this question...is the economy really that bad? Or are we just nervous and complaining about it? Or is Gramm out of touch?

I want someone to explain how the "well regulated militia" part is supposed to work.

From the "OH NO HE DI-IN'T" file... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/09/jes...ment/index.html

According to Glenn Beck, this is conservatism: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.cons...ives/index.html In summary, Beck's conservatism sounds a lot like another name for social darwinism. I honestly don't even think Beck believes that, given how conservatisms usually have no problem running to the government and ask for protection from anything THEY don't like.

And yet foriegn countries show insane amounts of American TV and movies in their own nations and have little (if any) of the same results.

You can blame the company, the courts, and Congress, but it is the insurance industry's manipulative and self-indulgent use of regulations that creates messes like this.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_on_...benefit_battles

Every time an old racist dies, I think "I guess a black man really will get elected president over his dead body."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith Since the money given to religious-based groups is only used to help people and not to push a religious agenda, I've actually come to think of President Bush's program as one of his better ideas as president. I'm glad that Obama is willing to keep what is good about the current administration, rather than a knee-jerk jettison just because Bush';s name is attached to it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_re_us/airport_guns Ah, geez...

Johnson may have gotten bad and conflicting advice after the U.S.-backed coup against Diem, but the choices were his to make and the decisions made were the ones that he made. Ultimately, he is the one responsible for escalating the war to a scale over 30 times what President Kennedy had authorized. Johnson is the one who lied to the American people about the Gulf of Tonkin, and Johnson is the one who kept making one bad decision after another until he finally left office. Compared to Johnson, Jimmy Carter was a saint. The worst mistake he made was his handling of Iran, but he did manage to get the hostages released. The problem with the Carter presidency was he got blamed for the messes left behind by the previous 3 administrations. Republicans loved to beat up on Carter for SALT II, but when Reagan essentially negotiated the same treaty with the Soviets during his presidency, he got hailed as a hero. The actions of the Federal Reserve under Carter led to a decrease in inflation, but the effects were delayed until he was out of office and Reagan got the credit.

I was only refuting your answer to the original question. I actually think I know the real answer to the question. (I can be a dick sometimes.)

I don't think pay is the problem, given a teaching contract starts at $30,000 for 180 days (even if we're talking 10 hour days). I think a bigger problem is with retaining people and the high turn-over in the profession because of frustrations with administrative incompetence, parental resistance, and too many demands on a teacher's time within a school that have nothing to do with actual teaching or student assessment. I've seen hundreds of man-hours wasted on things like writing mission statements, pointless meetings, and so-called professional development that has either little practical application or that is not follwo through correctly.

While President Kennedy did send troops to Vietnam, there were only 16,000 there when he died. Johnson escalated the war after the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident and before they lefty office there were over half a million. At its peak, a thousand Americans were dying in the war every month. His war strategy was based on containment of the communists without truly doing anything to help the South Vietnamese people. His budget priorities, also known as "guns and butter" was a combination of increased spending on military and social programs coupled with tax breaks, led to greater inflation (starting a tide which was not turned until the 1980s). Though poverty dropped dramatically at first, eventually his anti-poverty programs were defunded to help pay for the Vietnam War. Though he was instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Act passed, it was originally proposed a year before by John F. Kennedy.

Let me see if I understand this argument... Bad things that happened while LBJ was in office = JFK's responsible because it was his supposedly idea. Good things that happened while LBJ was in office = JFK's not responsible even if it was his idea. Does that about sum it up?

No doubt a whole hell of a lot of people are saying that, sure. But once again, refer to history. In 2004, twelve million more people voted for Bush than did four years prior. Despite all the shit he bungled in the first four years, despite his consistently declining approval ratings from 9/12 on forward, despite everything about the last four years they'd just lived through, twelve million new people decided "I want me some more of that!" and rushed to the poles. Never underestimate the (mad lib) of the American people. Apparently, then, the key to Republican electoral victory is time travel, because if the 2008 election were taking place in the year 2004 you might have a point. Since Bush's approval ratings are NOW below 30%, I would think that a lot more keen to the idea that Republican governance is a bad idea than were aware of it in 2004. Here in the year 2008, there's more evidence that Republican policies don't work than there was in 2004. Unless the Republican Party can import voters via time machine from 4 years ago, I'm pretty sure most voters are aware of how big of a failure those policies are, and are probably having second thoughts about voting Republican for a third straight time.

You could start by asking the 50 million people who voted for Bush in 2000, and the 62 million who did so in 2004. Lots of people agree with Republican policies, ya know. I'm sure if I asked most of the people who voted Republican in 2000 or 2004 why they did it, their answer would be along the lines of "I had no idea they were going to fuck up this badly." I'm mean, how much evidence do you need that Republican policies don't work before you are ready to stop voting for them?

Newsweek uses the number of kids enrolled in AP classes as its sole criteria for judged school quality, according to its annual "America's Best Schools" issue. I'm not kidding... http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380 On the other hand... Er, um, uh...okay...

Somebody really wanted to be part of this thread (why else bring it up, given that the average American isn't old enough to remember the Carter years and knows him only from his post-presidency humanitarian work)... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ousy-president/ Say what you want about his economic policies, but how many American soldiers died in combat under President Carter? Zero.