| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 May 2004 09:10:22 AM |
| Object: |
US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
Bad Assignment
U.S. Schools Chief Seeks More Voucher Schemes
Now that Congress has passed a $14-million voucher plan for religious and
other private schools in the District of Columbia, U.S. Education Secretary
Rod Paige is looking ahead to the future.
The D.C. scheme was pitched as a five-year "experiment," but Paige doesn't
want to wait for the results to come in. He wants other states to start
implementing voucher plans now.
"This is just the beginning," Paige said during a Jan. 28 Heritage
Foundation speech. "We can't just sit and wait five years to see what
happens here. Rather, each school district must assess its needs and find
the best solutions for each individual situation."
Actually, this isn't the beginning. Wisconsin passed a voucher plan for the
city of Milwaukee in 1990. Ohio established one for Cleveland in 1996.
Florida passed a statewide program in 1999.
The fact is, we've had plenty of time to study the fruits of the voucher
"experiment." Two facts shine through: Vouchers do not improve the academic
performance of students, and vouchers lead to fly-by-night "schools" run by
people more interested in raiding the public purse than educating children.
The voucher plans in Milwaukee and Cleveland have been studied extensively.
Although voucher boosters have cooked up some "junk science" studies
designed to show academic improvement among voucher students, the objective
studies conducted by dispassionate researchers agree that no such
improvement exists: Students in the voucher programs generally do no better
academically than their public school peers.
Desperate voucher supporters have taken to arguing that polls show that the
parents of children in voucher schools feel better about their children's
education. This "touchy-feely" argument is an odd one for conservatives to
make. Feeling good about a school is not an acceptable substitute for the
solid academic gains Americans were promised vouchers would deliver.
The voucher programs in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida also have been
scandal-plagued. Subsidized private schools have shut down in mid year;
some have been storefront operations run by ex-cons. One school in
Cleveland had no heat and broken windows; the building couldn't even meet
the fire code.
In Florida, two men in Ocala are accused of setting up a phony private
school, bilking the state for nearly a half million dollars in voucher aid
and funneling the cash to a terrorist network.
The "vouchers-with-no-strings" philosophy in Florida has gotten so out of
hand that even officials with the Catholic school system are appealing for
more government oversight. If the state doesn't step in, argues Larry
Keough, the chief lobbyist for Catholic education in Florida, the
experiment will collapse.
This is the system Secretary Paige is eager to expand to other states.
Faced with a choice between helping America's children and blind devotion
to rigid ideology, the secretary chose the latter. The words to describe
that tragedy have not yet been coined.
Bush To Buddhists
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
20 May 2004 06:50:42 PM |
|
|
Bob, take note.
Haven't I been saying that vouchers are coming? I never said they were good,
I only said they were coming. It turns out that they are not good, but they
are coming anyway. And, the problem is that voucher schools are not better
than the public schools that children are being taken from, and this is a
serious problem. Even the religious schools recognize that they need to be
benchmarked so performance can be measured and assessed. Jim has just posted
what you and I have both been worried about, that education will not
improve. It is good to see that religion is not the weak link in the
program, another thing I have been saying.
I agree with this story completely. It just proves that vouchers are not
necessarily good. They *can* be good, but there is much work to be done to
make them good. But, the problem is not the religion that might come with
them, it is the lack of education.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:82fpa093bqrj7qaud8ef6p8cuf4d0aelmt@4ax.com...
Bad Assignment
U.S. Schools Chief Seeks More Voucher Schemes
Now that Congress has passed a $14-million voucher plan for religious and
other private schools in the District of Columbia, U.S. Education
Secretary
Rod Paige is looking ahead to the future.
The D.C. scheme was pitched as a five-year "experiment," but Paige doesn't
want to wait for the results to come in. He wants other states to start
implementing voucher plans now.
"This is just the beginning," Paige said during a Jan. 28 Heritage
Foundation speech. "We can't just sit and wait five years to see what
happens here. Rather, each school district must assess its needs and find
the best solutions for each individual situation."
Actually, this isn't the beginning. Wisconsin passed a voucher plan for
the
city of Milwaukee in 1990. Ohio established one for Cleveland in 1996.
Florida passed a statewide program in 1999.
The fact is, we've had plenty of time to study the fruits of the voucher
"experiment." Two facts shine through: Vouchers do not improve the
academic
performance of students, and vouchers lead to fly-by-night "schools" run
by
people more interested in raiding the public purse than educating
children.
The voucher plans in Milwaukee and Cleveland have been studied
extensively.
Although voucher boosters have cooked up some "junk science" studies
designed to show academic improvement among voucher students, the
objective
studies conducted by dispassionate researchers agree that no such
improvement exists: Students in the voucher programs generally do no
better
academically than their public school peers.
Desperate voucher supporters have taken to arguing that polls show that
the
parents of children in voucher schools feel better about their children's
education. This "touchy-feely" argument is an odd one for conservatives to
make. Feeling good about a school is not an acceptable substitute for the
solid academic gains Americans were promised vouchers would deliver.
The voucher programs in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida also have been
scandal-plagued. Subsidized private schools have shut down in mid year;
some have been storefront operations run by ex-cons. One school in
Cleveland had no heat and broken windows; the building couldn't even meet
the fire code.
In Florida, two men in Ocala are accused of setting up a phony private
school, bilking the state for nearly a half million dollars in voucher aid
and funneling the cash to a terrorist network.
The "vouchers-with-no-strings" philosophy in Florida has gotten so out of
hand that even officials with the Catholic school system are appealing for
more government oversight. If the state doesn't step in, argues Larry
Keough, the chief lobbyist for Catholic education in Florida, the
experiment will collapse.
This is the system Secretary Paige is eager to expand to other states.
Faced with a choice between helping America's children and blind devotion
to rigid ideology, the secretary chose the latter. The words to describe
that tragedy have not yet been coined.
Bush To Buddhists
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
21 May 2004 06:01:59 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Bob, take note.
:|
:|Haven't I been saying that vouchers are coming?
Dear readers
***** does it again.
IN another thread here which I was rarely paying any attention to, seldom
reading along, I did happen to notice the other day that ***** here was
dropping my name quite a bit in his replies to another.
One of the things he was complaining about was jumping in replying then
leaving.
Gee, so after reading a number of his replies to this other fella yet
mentioning me in his replies to this other fella I replied to him in a
series of replies, once more spanking his ***** with facts, valid evidence
and data.
What happens, ***** here does exactly what he blames others for, he
runs away. Only to appear here and in another thread with more jeffy
ignorant *****.
***** still remains in his ignorant. ***** doesn't' seem to
realize that baby Bush is in trouble and if he isn't able to con enough
sheepish Americans he won't get re-elected. If he doesn't get reelected
this "U.S. Schools Chief Seeks More Voucher Schemes" is out of a job come
next Jan and won't have any effect at all on the U S Schools.
Even if he should get reelected again dippy jeffy also doesn't seem to
understand that we don't live in a dictatorship, YET. Thus what one cabinet
person wants doesn't automatically make it happen. There are a number of
factors, such as state legislatures, state Constitutions, voters in the
various states etc that all come into play here.
:|I never said they were good,
:|I only said they were coming.
***** has this wild idea that the public school system as it is known
today is going to be eliminated.. In it's place a national voucher system
will be created and all the private religious schools are going to line up
to be apart of that and in addition to all that there is going to be huge
numbers of for profit non religious private schools created. American's
children will then be educated under this new system.
:|It turns out that they are not good, but they
:|are coming anyway.
Note readers, This is the third time he has said they are coming, yet, he
offers not one single shred of evidence.
In fact, facts are the exact opposite.
Recent news and views on vouchers from across the country
http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TRACKID=&CID=1318&DID=32347
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH CAROLINA
Tax credit proposal dies in House (The State, May 13)
Posted on Thu, May. 13, 2004
Proposed tuition tax creditTax credit proposal dies in House
By JENNIFER TALHELM
Staff Writer
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/8653827.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Tax credit proposal dies in House (The State, May 13)
Voucher plan fails in Senate (Concord Monitor, May 7)
New Hampshire Senate rejects voucher plan; third rejection by state
legislature this session.
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73172053246867&Avis=CM&Dato=20040507&Kategori=REPOSITORY&Lopenr=405070341&Ref=AR
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D29712A58
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEXAS
4/25/04 Young: If they want vouchers, why can't they say word?
By JOHN YOUNG Opinion page editor
Recently the organization Children First America released a poll that
showed a resounding majority in Texas supported school vouchers.
That's odd. I haven't detected a popular stampede. And I listen for
hoofbeats.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/04/25/1082869768.05522.5142.2897.html;COXnetJSessionID=ArqydsAU6blyoclK8XscPJlwAwpkNPGZLLYRl8I8bWByKy2n1ZBo!-915839367?urac=n&urvf=10849920509780.2413364463837162
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I5A721A58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTAH
Walker flunks bill on school vouchers
By Dan Harrie
The Salt Lake Tribune
Gov. Olene Walker may have invited the wrath of conservative
Republicans on Tuesday by vetoing legislation that would have opened the
door for Utah's first private-school vouchers and rejecting one of the few
"parental rights" bills to pass in the recent lawmaking session.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03242004/utah/150732.asp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ULTIMATE SERIES, VOUCHERS, UPDATED
CURRENT STAUS OF VOUCHER SYSTEMS
:
Voters have rejected ballot initiatives to create voucher systems
STATE PAROCHIAID REFERENDA
STATE YEAR- AGAINST- FOR
New York 1967 72% 28%
Michigan 1970 57% 43%
Nebraska 1970 57% 43%
Oregon 1972 61% 39%
Idaho 1972 57% 43%
Maryland 1972 55% 45%
Maryland 1974 57% 43%
Washington 1975 61% 39%
Missouri 1976 60% 40%
Alaska 1976 54% 46%
Michigan 1978 74% 26%
D C 1981 89% 11%
California 1982 61% 39%
Massachusetts 1982 62% 38%
South Dakota 1986 46% 54%*
Massachusetts 1986 70% 30%
Utah 1988 70% 30%
Oregon 1990 67 33%
Colorado 1992 67% 33%
California 1993 70% 30%
California 2000 71% 29%
Michigan 2000 69% 31%
--------------------------------------------------------
* The S Dakota vote was for a bill for funds to purchase books only for
k-12 private religious schools. (Something already found to be
constitutional nationally)
VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN OVERWHELMINGLY
REJECT SCHOOL VOUCHERS
http://www.au.org/press/pr118002.htm
The above only mentions Colorado once but do notice the size of the defeat.
Representatives elected to the state legislatures and Congress are suppose
to represent the citizens of their districts.
These defeats at the ballot box, with regards to vouchers, have not been
squeaker ya know 51% to 49%, or 50.5% to 49,5%
Florida, Maine, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin have all
passed voucher laws. All have been found unconstitutional by the courts,
with the exception of:
Wisconsin's law, which, according to the People For the American Way
Foundation (PFAWF) is currently "under investigation by the state because
of a complaint filed by PFAWF and the NAACP." 1
THE VOUCHER SYSTEM IN CLEVELAND OHIO WAS
DECLARED CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE USSC IN JUNE 2002
As of 1999-APR, privately-funded voucher programs are available in at
least 39 American cities. The largest, funded by John Walton and Ted
Forstmann, was scheduled to award scholarships of up to $1,600 to 40,000
low-income students across the U.S.
However, even though the Cleveland model is compatible with the U.S.
federal constitution, voucher systems are still prohibited in many states
because they conflict with those states' constitutions. Analyst *****
Carpenter of the fundamentalist Christian group, Focus on the Family, said
that individual states present different challenges. He said: "As we look
at those state constitutions versus the recent federal ruling, it's going
to be incumbent upon the legislatures in many of those states, or people of
those states, to amend their constitution as such." 19
EXPERIENCE WITH PILOT PROGRAMS
Pilot studies were conducted in Milwaukee, WI and Cleveland, OH during
the late1990s. As noted above, voucher parents are more pleased with the
academic quality of their children's schools than are parents of children
in public schools. Indiana University researchers found that the average
class size in private schools was smaller but that the teachers in public
schools had better credentials and greater experience. The researchers
concluded that the two effects cancelled each other out. Voucher students
did better in fourth-grade academic achievement tests in language and
science, but the differences were "relatively small." In other tests,
reading, math, social studies and "total battery," there was no difference
between public and voucher students.
Florida:
The Florida voucher plan closely matches the national plan that is
currently proposed by Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush.
Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a statewide voucher bill, the
Opportunity Scholarship Program, into law on 1999-JUN-21. It gave vouchers
of up to $3,389 a year, but only to children who attended schools which the
state evaluated as failures. A school rating of "F" for two out of four
years on the annual Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test would allow
vouchers to be given to the parents of the schools' students. When the
program began in 1999-AUG, students in only two schools were eligible; both
are in Pensacola. 4
It is surprising that Florida's legislature would pass a voucher law that
could be used to fund education in a religiously-based private school. The
state Constitution clearly states, "[N]o revenue of the state or any
political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public
treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or religious
denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." While the Florida law
would not divert funds from the government directly to religious schools,
it would do so indirectly, through parents.
A coalition of groups, including the Florida PTA, League of Women Voters,
teacher's unions and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People was successful in challenging the funding scheme in court.
The law was declared unconstitutional by Leon County Circuit Court Judge L.
Ralph Smith, Jr. on 2000-MAR-14. He based his decision largely on Article
IX Section 1 of the Florida constitution which requires the school to
provide free education through public schools. It declares:
"The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of
the State of Florida...It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to
make adequate provision for the education of all children residing
within its borders...Adequate provision shall be made by law for a
uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high quality system of free public
schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education and for
the establishment, maintenance and operation of institutions of
higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of
the people may require..."
According to FPAWF, "The court overturned the program because of
arequirement in the Florida constitution that obligates the state to
provide all students with a 'high quality education' through a 'uniform,
efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools.'
'Florida officials can't get around their constitutional duty to Florida's
schoolchildren by passing the buck to private and religious schools,' said
Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way Foundation, which
is a co-counsel in the case. 'It's time for Florida to put its money where
the kids are - in the public schools.' 1
Leon Russell, spokesperson for the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People in Florida commented: "The judge has made it
very clear. He's saying you can't take public dollars and give it [sic] to
private institutions because the people of the sate of Florida have said
[that] education is the prime responsibility and priority of the state." 7
Bob Chase, President of the National Education Association said: "This
ruling puts a stake in the heart of the voucher movement...It sends a
strong signal to states across the nation that vouchers are no substitute
for a quality public education."
[Author's note: This statement might be a bit optimistic. The judge's
decision was based on some very strong language in the Florida
constitution, that may well not be matched in many other states.]
8
Governor J. Bush promises to keep the program running, by raising private
funding. He characterized Judge Smith's decision as "the first inning of a
long, drawn-out legal battle." Governor Bush intends to appeal the court
ruling aggressively. Judge Smith ordered that the 53 children who took
advantage of vouchers will be allowed to finish their school year before
returning to the public school for their 2000-2001 academic year.
In 2002-AUG, a state judge ruled that Florida's Opportunity Scholarships
was unconstitutional under the state's constitution. The ruling was based
on the prohibition of government funding going directly or indirectly to
religiousorganizations. The decision will probably be appealed.
PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
Phi Delta Kappa and the Gallup Organization have conducted seven polls on
school vouchers between 1993 and 2000. Unfortunately, the main question is
poorly worded, because it lumps together current voucher proposals which
only cover a portion of private school tuition with the concept of the
state paying 100% of tuition. In addition, it does not differentiate
between religious and secular private schools.
"Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private
school to attend at public expense."
Year
% favor
% oppose
% undecided
1993
24
74
2
1995
33
65
2
1996
36
61
3
1997
44
52
4
1998
44
50
6
1999
41
55
4
2000
39
56
5
ADDITIONAL DATA
76% felt that if private or religious schools accept funds from the
government, that they should be accountable to the state in the same way as
the public schools are.
75% preferred "improving and strengthening the existing public
schools" rather than "providing vouchers for parents to use in selecting
and paying for private and/or church related schools."
41% of the respondents felt that the Democratic party was more
interested in improving public education than the Republican party; 29%
felt the reverse.
When the year 2000 results were announced on 2000-AUG-21, Brent Walker,
Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee said that the survey
"indicates that the American public is seeing through the misguided
arguments of the pro-voucher forces." 15
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s3oaav40j8iglr4qk9um72frsv4d53k6rt%404ax.com&output=gplain
**************************************************
Capitol Hill News - D.C. Vouchers
Get up to speed on Congress and the debate over school vouchers in the
District of Columbia.
Cleveland Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on the Cleveland voucher program
Colorado Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on the Colorado voucher program
Florida Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on Florida's voucher programs
Milwaukee Vouchers - News and Notes
Read the latest on the Milwaukee voucher program
Voucher News Nationwide
Recent news and views on vouchers from across the country
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He would be hard pressed to find anything in any of the above that
indicates his theory is ever going to happen.
But then facts and jeffy have never been on speaking terms
He also totally overlooks this years USSC ruling Davy v. Locke which shot
down the state funding a religious education for a person wanting to become
a minister.
That is important because some thought that the court would rule in favor
and begin the process of dismantling state constitutional restrictions (so
called Blaine amendments) against public funds going to private religious
schools. Instead the court didn't do that. This is going to have a slowing
effect on vouchers on a state by state basis
Actually what is really wild about it is it is another example of the court
sending mixed signals What is super wild is Rehnquist wrote the opinion in
Mueller v Allen which began the process of voodoo court rulings that were
used to up hold the Cleveland case. Rehnquist wrote the opinion in the
Cleveland case and Rehnquist totally shocked everyone by writing the
opinion in the Davy v. Locke case.
Does this represent a reborn Rehnquist? Who knows but there is conflict
between those three decisions all authored by the same Justice but
different clerks for that same justice.
:|And, the problem is that voucher schools are not better
:|than the public schools that children are being taken from, and this is a
:|serious problem. Even the religious schools recognize that they need to be
:|benchmarked so performance can be measured and assessed. Jim has just posted
:|what you and I have both been worried about, that education will not
:|improve. It is good to see that religion is not the weak link in the
:|program, another thing I have been saying.
Dear Readers
Notice how fatalistic dippy jeffy is. OH my my Jeffy has said on more than
one occasion the public schools are a failure. now he is saying that
private schools are no better. LOL but of course, according to him,
vouchers are coming
If he really believes that private schools are no better, why destroy a
system that is in place for a untried , untested, unknown system that what
little data there is shows isn't really any kind of marked improvement? Why
isn't he fighting tooth and nail to prevent this massive mistake he thinks
is going to happen and he says he opposes from happening. Is he a sheep
too?
Actually he tries to excuse private religious schools somewhat, but the
facts are, private religious schools make up the vast bulk of private k-12
schools and if there isn't really any improvement that means they aren't
doing any better than the pubic schools.
Thus common sense says your work at fixing the public school system and let
the private religious schools go back to being financed and maintained by
the host sponsoring religion.
:|I agree with this story completely. It just proves that vouchers are not
:|necessarily good. They *can* be good, but there is much work to be done to
:|make them good. But, the problem is not the religion that might come with
:|them, it is the lack of education.
Dear readers
Dippy still refuses to acknowledge that private religious schools present
an establishment clause problem, in spite of what Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
O'Connor and Kennedy have said.
PART II
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In the late 1990s, a study of a pilot voucher programs in Cleveland
OH found that 80% of the vouchers were used to fund attendance at private
religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a New York state
voucher system was unconstitutional because its primary effect was to
advance religion. 3 The state had given tuition reimbursement payments to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools. In about 85% of
the cases, the schools were religious in nature.
Depending upon how the legislation is worded, government vouchers
may represent a snare to private schools. Referring to the "GI Bill for
Children" a federal voucher plan proposed by the Bush administration in
1992, the conservative Heritage Foundation warned that the plan "easily
could lead to onerous federal regulation of private schools...The Bush
proposal seeks to subject private schools to the onerous array of federal
civil rights laws. The bill lists six civil rights statutes and states that
'a school or provider of supplementary academic services that receives
scholarship funds under this Act shall, as a condition of participation
under this Act, comply with the statutes.' " 5
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s3oaav40j8iglr4qk9um72frsv4d53k6rt%404ax.com&output=gplain
An interesting fact of life:
If you begin with 1967 or 68 with the court ruling that held that one
portion of the Constitution (taxing and spending clause) could not be used
to violate another portion of the Constitution (the Establishment Clause)
and you look at all the state district courts, state courts of appeal state
supreme courts, federal district courts, federal courts of appeals and
USSC you will find something very interesting.
What you will find is that there have been far more judges and justices
that have ruled all the various voucher schemes that have come along
unconstitutional then there have been judges and justices that have ruled
voucher schemes constitutional.
Now we are talking 1969 to 2004. We are talking 50 states on the state
court level and the entire U S on the federal court level.
Talk about a minority ruling: The way our system works 5 justices on the
USSC can overrule perhaps hundreds of judges/justices below them on the
state and federal courts levels
Some of those judges and justices were as qualified legally speaking had as
good and in many cases superior legal minds to any of the justices that
were currently sitting on the USSC. They just didn't have the opportunity
to have the political connections or decided not to play the political *****
kissing required to get that appointment to the High court.
The point to this entire little side trip discourse is very simple. Far
more legal minds have recognized and acknowledged that public funds going
to private religious schools and other private religious organizations,
institutions, etc does run up smack against the Establishment Clause does
in fact mean that the government is using one portion of the constitution
to violate another portion of that same document which is unconstitutional
(with all sorts of disrespect intended to Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas,
O'Connor and Kennedy, those same clowns who brought us baby Bush.)
Of course. Jeffy will never admit there is a establishment clause violation
because jeffy is a radical religious right fan. I have never, ever found a
single instance where jeffy has gone against any radical religious right
position in favor of strict separation.
Jeffy does support church state separation though. The only problem is, he
has never run across any example where he feels the separation advocates
are correct. They are always wrong, what with them being liberals and
atheists and all, ya know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
21 May 2004 09:28:39 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gtmra0dirot6rblsq7rpogn48qr1p4novq@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Bob, take note.
:|
:|Haven't I been saying that vouchers are coming?
Dear readers
***** does it again.
So jailbird the cripple was busted again by another poster.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
21 May 2004 05:15:13 PM |
|
|
What happens, ***** here does exactly what he blames others for, he
runs away. Only to appear here and in another thread with more jeffy
ignorant *****.
Run away? Is this what running away is like?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
24 May 2004 05:44:21 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|> What happens, ***** here does exactly what he blames others for, he
:|> runs away. Only to appear here and in another thread with more jeffy
:|> ignorant *****.
:|>
:|Run away? Is this what running away is like?
Awwwwwww, how cute. Baby Strickland is showing his age again
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
21 May 2004 07:35:58 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob, take note.
Haven't I been saying that vouchers are coming? I never said they were good,
I only said they were coming.
But you don't KNOW that. You only THINK that you see a trend, and
your analytical abilities are abysmal.
It turns out that they are not good, but they are coming anyway.
The end of the world is coming, and this is not good, but it is coming
anyway. Maybe it will take 20 billion years, or maybe God will strike
us out of existence before I write the period on the end of this
sentence
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
21 May 2004 05:12:41 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:dntra0lpt4bra1e37bd85d4ou2jtu5gokm@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob, take note.
Haven't I been saying that vouchers are coming? I never said they were
good,
I only said they were coming.
But you don't KNOW that. You only THINK that you see a trend, and
your analytical abilities are abysmal.
But, I do know that, and now we have proof. The writing is on the wall. It
takes a blind person to not see it.
It turns out that they are not good, but they are coming anyway.
The end of the world is coming, and this is not good, but it is coming
anyway. Maybe it will take 20 billion years, or maybe God will strike
us out of existence before I write the period on the end of this
sentence
The end of the world IS coming, but just not in my life time, so I don't
worry. The end might be here tomorrow, and I am ready. Either way, I don't
worry because I am prepared. The point is, all I can do is prepare. In the
case of vouchers, I am preparing, you are ignoring. By your own admission,
you are sweeping the issue under the rug (figuratively, not literally).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
21 May 2004 07:28:52 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:dntra0lpt4bra1e37bd85d4ou2jtu5gokm@4ax.com...
But you don't KNOW that. You only THINK that you see a trend, and
your analytical abilities are abysmal.
But, I do know that, and now we have proof. The writing is on the wall. It
takes a blind person to not see it.
I'm not blind, and I don't see it. Disproof by counterexample.
It turns out that they are not good, but they are coming anyway.
The end of the world is coming, and this is not good, but it is coming
anyway. Maybe it will take 20 billion years, or maybe God will strike
us out of existence before I write the period on the end of this
sentence
The end of the world IS coming, but just not in my life time,
How do you know?
The end might be here tomorrow,
Then it MIGHT happen in your lifetime. You just contradicted
yourself.
and I am ready.
I doubt it. How could one be ready for the end of the world?
Either way, I don't worry because I am prepared.
No. You don't worry because you have the mentality of Alfred E.
Neumann.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
24 May 2004 12:55:38 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:qg7ta05t2qf57u6a2s0sue6ddurviomiip@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:dntra0lpt4bra1e37bd85d4ou2jtu5gokm@4ax.com...
But you don't KNOW that. You only THINK that you see a trend, and
your analytical abilities are abysmal.
But, I do know that, and now we have proof. The writing is on the wall.
It
takes a blind person to not see it.
I'm not blind, and I don't see it. Disproof by counterexample.
Well, your buddy, Jim, posted a tid bit that should open you eyes. It isn't
my article, it only supports my message that that which we do not want is
coming anyway.
It turns out that they are not good, but they are coming anyway.
The end of the world is coming, and this is not good, but it is coming
anyway. Maybe it will take 20 billion years, or maybe God will strike
us out of existence before I write the period on the end of this
sentence
The end of the world IS coming, but just not in my life time,
How do you know?
I don't know, but I am not arguing the point, so it doesn't really matter.
You are not arguing the point either because you gave us a number of 20
billion years, or by the end of the sentence.
The end might be here tomorrow,
Then it MIGHT happen in your lifetime. You just contradicted
yourself.
No, you parsed my sentence in a place where the parsing changed the meaning.
and I am ready.
I doubt it. How could one be ready for the end of the world?
If I have to explain it, you will not understand, and are probably not ready
anyway.
Either way, I don't worry because I am prepared.
No. You don't worry because you have the mentality of Alfred E.
Neumann.
Insults really do not make you look as smart as you like to think you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: US Schools Chief Seeks Vouchers |
24 May 2004 01:59:38 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Well, your buddy, Jim, posted a tid bit that should open you eyes. It isn't
:|my article, it only supports my message that that which we do not want is
:|coming anyway.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What article is that, you forgot to tell us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
