Author Topic: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever  (Read 59869 times)

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #195 on: October 07, 2004, 11:57:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  So what is Pollard's point?
 
 If a bug eyed short bus riding alcoholic turd like Billy Joel can make it in life and marry a beautiful woman his daughter's age, anybody can make it in life. We just need to give them a chance.
it just kept popping in to my head while reading responses like cubby bear's, certainly not the only one who does it
 
 but I am not sure where hitman said teachers should not be held at all responsible
 
 taking everything "to it's extreme" possible meaning does little for a discussion

Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #196 on: October 07, 2004, 11:59:00 am »
Well, yeah, that too.
 
 I agree with Hitman and Cubby Bear both, in general.
 
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by pollard:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  So what is Pollard's point?
 
 If a bug eyed short bus riding alcoholic turd like Billy Joel can make it in life and marry a beautiful woman his daughter's age, anybody can make it in life. We just need to give them a chance.
it just kept popping in to my head while reading responses like cubby bear's, certainly not the only one who does it
 
 but I am not sure where hitman said teachers should not be held at all responsible
 
 taking everything "to it's extreme" possible meaning does little for a discussion [/b]

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #197 on: October 07, 2004, 12:23:00 pm »
I never said that teachers should never be held responsible at all.  They should be.  However, there are things that are out of a teacher's control, which NCLB does not address.  So automatically if a child isn't performing up to ability, it is automatically the teacher's fault, which just plain isn't fair.  That would be like if a car breaks down, automatically blaming the driver, when it could be faulty manufacturing of the car.
 
 I give all of my students a chance, no matter what, and prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids.  And unless you've been in the trenches like myself, reserve your judgements on my abilities as an educator.
 
 Case in point.  I have a student who had a hemispherectomy (sp?) at age 3 or 4.  Number one, this kid is lucky as hell to be alive.  However, now he is in the 5th grade, although he has the functioning level of a 4 year old (after all he is missing half of his brain).  But his parents will not accept his limitations and have him on a diploma track which means he is supposed to graduate from high school and meet all requirements.  And because of wonderful legislation like NCLB and the IDEA Act of the 80's, we are held responsible for this kid's progress or lack thereof.  There is only so much you can do, especially when the parents are fuck-ups who just want to blame others for their own shortcomings as parents when they don't change the kids diapers or help with his studies at home, at the same time ignoring his brother (who is "normal") and flushing his upbringing.  
 
 And this is only one of the problems my wife and I deal with on an everday basis, that takes away from getting all of the other kids performing where they need to be.  So in reality, the NCLB is more about shutting out reason, than holding accountability.  
 
 Can anyone now see why a teacher would feel like this?  Especially when all I hear from others outside of the profession is that teaching is so great because of having the summers off.  When in reality we have classes that we have to take to constantly keep up our certification, and don't get paid enough that my wife and I can't even afford to buy a house under the current wonderful economy in the district where we teach.
 
 Now I just feel like taking a bullet.

Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #198 on: October 07, 2004, 12:28:00 pm »
Hitman, as a former teacher, you have all my sympathies. You are right, people don't have a clue about the life of a teacher.

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #199 on: October 07, 2004, 01:09:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Hitman, as a former teacher, you have all my sympathies. You are right, people don't have a clue about the life of a teacher.
Rhett, this may be the only time that you hear this on the boards...THANK YOU!

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #200 on: October 07, 2004, 02:21:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
 prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids.
So you pre-judge your students based on the net-worth of their parents.
 
 Nice!!
 
 Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade?

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #201 on: October 07, 2004, 02:56:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 
 Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade?
ggw: Our very own Senator McCarthy.

Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #202 on: October 07, 2004, 03:23:00 pm »
Ten Questions for Dick Cheney
 10/03/2004 @ 3:22pm
 
 Dick Cheney, who spent most of his administration's first term in a secure undisclosed location, has been campaigning this fall in the Potemkin Villages of Republican reaction. As such, he has not faced much in the way of serious questioning from his audiences of party apparatchiks. Nor has he been grilled by the White House-approved journalistic commissars who travel with the Vice President to take stenography when Cheney makes his daily prediction of the apocalypse that would befall America should he be removed from power.
 
 On Tuesday night, however, Cheney will briefly expose himself in an unmanaged setting â?? to the extent that the set of a vice presidential debate can be so identified. In preparation for this rare opportunity to pin down the man former White House counsel John Dean refers to as "the de facto president," here is a list of ten questions that ought to be directed to Dick Cheney:
 
 1.) When you appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you announced that, "We will be greeted as liberators." In light of the fact that more than 1,000 young Americans have been killed, while more than 20,000 have been wounded, in the fighting in Iraq, do you think you might have been a bit too optimistic?
 
 2.) Why were maps of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines included in the documents reviewed by the administration's energy task force, the National Energy Policy Development Group, which you headed during the first months of 2001? Did discussions about regime change in Iraq figure in the deliberations of the energy task force?
 
 3.) When the administration was asking in 2002 for Congressional approval of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, you told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." You then claimed that, "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten American friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Several months later, when you appeared on "Meet the Press" just prior to the invasion of Iraq, you said of Saddam Hussein, "We know he has reconstituted these (chemical weapons) programs. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." As it turned out, you were wrong on virtually every count. How did you misread the signs so completely? And why was it that so many other world leaders, who looked at the same intelligence you had access to, were able to assess the situation so much more accurately?
 
 4.) Considering the fact that your predictions about the ease of the Iraq invasion and occupation turned out to be so dramatically off the mark, and the fact that you were in charge of the White House task force on terrorism that failed, despite repeated and explicit warnings, to anticipate the terrorist threats on the World Trade Center, what is it about your analytical skills that should lead Americans to believe your claims that America will be more vulnerable to attack if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected?
 
 5.) Speaking of intelligence, were you or any members of your staff involved in any way in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who was working on weapons of mass destruction issues, after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, angered the administration by revealing that the president made claims about Iraqi WMD programs that he and his aides had been told were unreliable?
 
 6.) During your tenure as Secretary of Defense, you and your staff asked a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root Services, to study whether private firms could take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. They came to the conclusion that this was a good idea, and you began what would turn into a massive privatization initiative that would eventually direct billions of U.S. tax dollars to Halliburton and its subsidiary. Barely two years after you finished your service as Secretary of Defense, you became the CEO of Halliburton. Yet, when you were asked about the money you received from Halliburton -- $44 million for five year's work -- you said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." How do you define the words "absolutely nothing"?
 
 7.) No corporation has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton. The company, which you served as CEO before joining the administration, moved from No.19 on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors before the Iraq war began to No. 1 in 2003. Last year, alone, the company pocketed $4.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. You said when asked about Halliburton during a September 2003 appearance on "Meet the Press" that you had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest." Yet, you continue to hold unexercised options for 233,000 shares of Halliburton stock, and since becoming vice president you have on an annual basis collected deferred compensation payments ranging from $162,392 to $205,298 from Halliburton. A recent review by the Congressional Research Service describes deferred salary and stock options of the sort that you hold as "among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." In the interest of ending the debate about whether Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration, would you be willing to immediately surrender any claims to those stock options and to future deferred compensation in order to make real your claim that you have "severed all my ties with the company."
 
 8.) You have been particularly aggressive in attacking the qualifications of John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, to serve as commander-in-chief. Yet, you received five draft deferments during the 1960s, which allowed you to avoid serving in Vietnam. In 1989, when you were nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, you were asked why you did not serve in Vietnam and you told the Senate that you "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." Yet, in an interview that same year, you told the Washington Post that, "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." Which was it -- "proud to serve" or "other priorities"?
 
 9.) Nelson Mandela says he worries about you serving in the vice presidency because, "He opposed the decision to release me from prison." As a member of Congress you did vote against a resolution expressing the sense of the House that then President Ronald Reagan should demand that South Africa's apartheid government grant the immediate and unconditional release of Mandela and other political prisoners. You have said you voted the way you did in the late 1980s because "the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization." Do you still believe that Mandela and others who fought for an end to apartheid were terrorists? If so, are you proud to have cast votes that helped to prolong Mandela's imprisonment and the apartheid system of racial segregation and discrimination?
 
 10.) Mandela has said that, to his view, you are "the real president of the United States." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said of the first years of the Bush presidency that, "Cheney and a handful of others had become 'a Praetorian guard' that encircled the President." O'Neill has also argued that the White House operates the way it does "because this is the way that Dick likes it." Why do you think that so many people, including veterans of this administration, seem to think that it is you, rather than George W. Bush, who is running the country?

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #203 on: October 07, 2004, 03:26:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
  Ten Questions for Dick Cheney
 10/03/2004 @ 3:22pm
 
 Dick Cheney, who spent most of his administration's first term in a secure undisclosed location, has been campaigning this fall in the Potemkin Villages of Republican reaction. As such, he has not faced much in the way of serious questioning from his audiences of party apparatchiks. Nor has he been grilled by the White House-approved journalistic commissars who travel with the Vice President to take stenography when Cheney makes his daily prediction of the apocalypse that would befall America should he be removed from power.
 
 On Tuesday night, however, Cheney will briefly expose himself in an unmanaged setting â?? to the extent that the set of a vice presidential debate can be so identified. In preparation for this rare opportunity to pin down the man former White House counsel John Dean refers to as "the de facto president," here is a list of ten questions that ought to be directed to Dick Cheney:
 
 1.) When you appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you announced that, "We will be greeted as liberators." In light of the fact that more than 1,000 young Americans have been killed, while more than 20,000 have been wounded, in the fighting in Iraq, do you think you might have been a bit too optimistic?
 
 2.) Why were maps of Iraqi oil fields and pipelines included in the documents reviewed by the administration's energy task force, the National Energy Policy Development Group, which you headed during the first months of 2001? Did discussions about regime change in Iraq figure in the deliberations of the energy task force?
 
 3.) When the administration was asking in 2002 for Congressional approval of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, you told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." You then claimed that, "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten American friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." Several months later, when you appeared on "Meet the Press" just prior to the invasion of Iraq, you said of Saddam Hussein, "We know he has reconstituted these (chemical weapons) programs. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." As it turned out, you were wrong on virtually every count. How did you misread the signs so completely? And why was it that so many other world leaders, who looked at the same intelligence you had access to, were able to assess the situation so much more accurately?
 
 4.) Considering the fact that your predictions about the ease of the Iraq invasion and occupation turned out to be so dramatically off the mark, and the fact that you were in charge of the White House task force on terrorism that failed, despite repeated and explicit warnings, to anticipate the terrorist threats on the World Trade Center, what is it about your analytical skills that should lead Americans to believe your claims that America will be more vulnerable to attack if John Kerry and John Edwards are elected?
 
 5.) Speaking of intelligence, were you or any members of your staff involved in any way in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative who was working on weapons of mass destruction issues, after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, angered the administration by revealing that the president made claims about Iraqi WMD programs that he and his aides had been told were unreliable?
 
 6.) During your tenure as Secretary of Defense, you and your staff asked a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root Services, to study whether private firms could take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. They came to the conclusion that this was a good idea, and you began what would turn into a massive privatization initiative that would eventually direct billions of U.S. tax dollars to Halliburton and its subsidiary. Barely two years after you finished your service as Secretary of Defense, you became the CEO of Halliburton. Yet, when you were asked about the money you received from Halliburton -- $44 million for five year's work -- you said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." How do you define the words "absolutely nothing"?
 
 7.) No corporation has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton. The company, which you served as CEO before joining the administration, moved from No.19 on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors before the Iraq war began to No. 1 in 2003. Last year, alone, the company pocketed $4.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. You said when asked about Halliburton during a September 2003 appearance on "Meet the Press" that you had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest." Yet, you continue to hold unexercised options for 233,000 shares of Halliburton stock, and since becoming vice president you have on an annual basis collected deferred compensation payments ranging from $162,392 to $205,298 from Halliburton. A recent review by the Congressional Research Service describes deferred salary and stock options of the sort that you hold as "among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer." In the interest of ending the debate about whether Halliburton has received special treatment from the administration, would you be willing to immediately surrender any claims to those stock options and to future deferred compensation in order to make real your claim that you have "severed all my ties with the company."
 
 8.) You have been particularly aggressive in attacking the qualifications of John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, to serve as commander-in-chief. Yet, you received five draft deferments during the 1960s, which allowed you to avoid serving in Vietnam. In 1989, when you were nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, you were asked why you did not serve in Vietnam and you told the Senate that you "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called." Yet, in an interview that same year, you told the Washington Post that, "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." Which was it -- "proud to serve" or "other priorities"?
 
 9.) Nelson Mandela says he worries about you serving in the vice presidency because, "He opposed the decision to release me from prison." As a member of Congress you did vote against a resolution expressing the sense of the House that then President Ronald Reagan should demand that South Africa's apartheid government grant the immediate and unconditional release of Mandela and other political prisoners. You have said you voted the way you did in the late 1980s because "the ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization." Do you still believe that Mandela and others who fought for an end to apartheid were terrorists? If so, are you proud to have cast votes that helped to prolong Mandela's imprisonment and the apartheid system of racial segregation and discrimination?
 
 10.) Mandela has said that, to his view, you are "the real president of the United States." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said of the first years of the Bush presidency that, "Cheney and a handful of others had become 'a Praetorian guard' that encircled the President." O'Neill has also argued that the White House operates the way it does "because this is the way that Dick likes it." Why do you think that so many people, including veterans of this administration, seem to think that it is you, rather than George W. Bush, who is running the country?
<img src="http://www.johnsbit.com/b3ta/images/My%20b3ta%20pix/are%20we%20there%20yet.gif" alt=" - " />

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #204 on: October 07, 2004, 03:54:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
 prefer to teach the disadvantaged kids more, because they appreciate what I do, rather than the rich-ass spoiled kids.
So you pre-judge your students based on the net-worth of their parents.
 
 Nice!!
 
 Never too early to indoctrinate the proletariat into class warfare, eh Comrade? [/b]
I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally.  No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever.  However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives.  So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #205 on: October 07, 2004, 04:02:00 pm »
Once again you show your bias -- Kids from yuppie homes are spoiled.  And, by it's glaring absence, we are left to assume that all the kids from poor homes are unspoiled little angels.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
 I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally.  No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever.  However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives.  So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.

thirsty moore

  • Member
  • Posts: 6131
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #206 on: October 07, 2004, 04:06:00 pm »
I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies.  Is that true?
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
 I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally.  No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever.  However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives.  So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #207 on: October 07, 2004, 04:11:00 pm »
So you're looking for a career change?
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by econo:
  I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies.  Is that true?
 

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #208 on: October 07, 2004, 04:13:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  So you're looking for a career change?
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by econo:
  I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies.  Is that true?
 
[/b]
i think he's trying to help tweaky out.
OU812

Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #209 on: October 07, 2004, 04:20:00 pm »
I thought art teachers were artists who were tired of waiting tables, and weren't lucky enough to have a trust fund or rich spouse to leech off of.
 
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by econo:
  I've heard that most of the time art teachers are burned out hippies.  Is that true?
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by hitman:
 I guess I forgot that Republicans take things so literally.  No I don't pre-judge, but I know for sure that you don't have any character flaws whatsoever.  However, those kids that are spoiled by yuppie parents normally don't appreciate how hard a teacher works, or the things that the teacher can bring to their lives.  So I say again, step out of your cubicle and step into my school.
[/b]