Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The same argument works the other way when we hear morons with picket signs chanting "Keep The Government Out of my Medicare".

Fact is we all know the history of why unions were formed in the first place, and it wasn't the workers fault.

agreed.

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

The same argument works the other way when we hear morons with picket signs chanting "Keep The Government Out of my Medicare".

Fact is we all know the history of why unions were formed in the first place, and it wasn't the workers fault.

Ahhh, nostalgia. Let's all get out our Weavers albums and rip through a couple of choruses of "Union Miners," "keep your hand upon the dollar, and your eyes upon the scale." Here's something a little more up to date. The valedictory address by Bob Chanin, long time general counsel for the NEA. A thrilling recitation of the goons' dedication to educating our kids. Brought me to tears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdgzBNh6kEM

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

But what is blatantly obvious, beyond dispute, is that she did it for career advancement and personal gain, nothing more or less. .

Umm... no, sparky that isn't blatantly obvious nor beyond dispute. Made up scandals just don't have the same punch they used to.

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Obama backs off the strident class-warfare, at least for one speech, and wins John Cassidy's approval in The New Yorker.

Cassidy quotes this section of a recent BHO speech:

My view of private equity is that it is, it is set up to maximize profits and that is a healthy part of the free market, of course. That’s part of the role of a lot of business people. That is not unique to private equity. My representatives have said repeatedly and I will say today, I think there are folks who do good work in that area and there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries. But understand their priority is to maximize profits, and that is not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers.

And the reason this is relevant to the campaign is that because my opponent, Governor Romney, the main calling card for why he should be President is his business experience. He is not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts, he is saying, “I am a business guy and I know how to fix it,” and this is his business.

And when you are President as opposed to the head of a private-equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off, and how are we paying for their retraining. Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters, so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as President is to think about how do we set up an equitable tax system so that everybody is paying their fair share, that allows us then to invest in science and technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow.

And so if your main argument for how to grow the economy is, “I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,” then you are missing what this job is about.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz1vctCefar

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Shoveling out the benefit of the doubt for union goons again, I see. If they're accused of crimes, one assumes the police are investigating, no? And there should be some data to support your blanket defense of bad teachers. It must have been with a heavy heart that you typed the phrase "I'm sure some of the accusations end up being true."

I wonder what percentage of teachers whiling away the days at taxpayer expense are the victim of false allegations by students and what percentage are simply too stupid to be allowed in the same room with impressionable kids.

I seem to recall an episode of "Law and Order" in which "rubber room" teachers whined about the unfairness of it all. All ambiguous, unproven and unprovable charges brought by ungrateful little sh*ts against dedicated, highly professional teachers. Is that about it?

Actually I don't believe a teacher having an affair with a student of legal age is a crime. Its grounds for dismissal obviously and perhaps should be illegal but isn't and hence the police wouldn't be involved. What you're recalling is the very last episode of Law & Order which took this story when it broke a few years ago and made it into a plot about an accused teacher threatening to attack a school.

So, once again we have the possibility of a knuckledragger myth to further the War On Education. Not sure why you guys don't want people to be educated until I hear Mitch McConnell or The Boner speak and then it all makes sense. "Job banks" as in having the union negotiate a contract where laid off workers are still paid to come in all day and do nothing were a vestige of the 1980's UAW-Big 3 labor battles and have been extinct for a long time. Recall, its 2012, not 1981.

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Umm... no, sparky that isn't blatantly obvious nor beyond dispute. Made up scandals just don't have the same punch they used to.

If it's not obvious to you that she said "I'm part Cherokee!" on her job applications purely for career advancement and the associated personal gain (really,even if it were true), then there's no hope for a worthwhile conversation here. Why else would she do it?

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Actually I don't believe a teacher having an affair with a student of legal age is a crime. Its grounds for dismissal obviously and perhaps should be illegal but isn't and hence the police wouldn't be involved. What you're recalling is the very last episode of Law & Order which took this story when it broke a few years ago and made it into a plot about an accused teacher threatening to attack a school.

So, once again we have the possibility of a knuckledragger myth to further the War On Education. Not sure why you guys don't want people to be educated until I hear Mitch McConnell or The Boner speak and then it all makes sense. "Job banks" as in having the union negotiate a contract where laid off workers are still paid to come in all day and do nothing were a vestige of the 1980's UAW-Big 3 labor battles and have been extinct for a long time. Recall, its 2012, not 1981.

Talk about myths. Opposition to or even criticism of goon teachers' unions means "you guys don't want people to be educated." From where I sit, there's no "war on education," other than the blitzkrieg led by Bob Chanin and the rest of his troops.

And a significant number of the teachers hanging out in rubber rooms had sex with students over the age of 18? Maybe even a majority? Got anything to substantiate that? I thought not. How's the air in the bunker?

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

If it's not obvious to you that she said "I'm part Cherokee!" on her job applications purely for career advancement and the associated personal gain (really,even if it were true), then there's no hope for a worthwhile conversation here. Why else would she do it?

If she really wrote her job application "I'm part Cherokee!" then I wonder how she got the job. Or do you mean she checked off a box?

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Umm... no, sparky that isn't blatantly obvious nor beyond dispute. Made up scandals just don't have the same punch they used to.

What part is made up? The part where she asserted Indian heritage based on cheekbones? Or the part where she allowed Harvard to pat itself on the back (for a decade) for hiring its first "minority" faculty member? Or the part where she plagiarized recipes for "Pow Wow Chow?"

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

If she really wrote her job application "I'm part Cherokee!" then I wonder how she got the job. Or do you mean she checked off a box?

Is the latter somehow less of a lie than the former?

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

If she really wrote her job application "I'm part Cherokee!" then I wonder how she got the job. Or do you mean she checked off a box?

well, either way. What's the difference?

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

What part is made up? The part where she asserted Indian heritage based on cheekbones? Or the part where she allowed Harvard to pat itself on the back (for a decade) for hiring its first "minority" faculty member? Or the part where she plagiarized recipes for "Pow Wow Chow?"

She asserted Indian heritage based on family lore. Next there's no indication she knew Harvard was "patting itself on the back" over her. Oh, and finally, plagarizing recipes for cookbook. OMG! Quick, somebody call Ken Starr! We need an investigation on this one!!!!

Really, is that the best you got? Not sure if you're one of these conservatives with a man crush on Scott Brown but somehow I'm just not sure "Cookbookgate" has a lot of legs.

If it's not obvious to you that she said "I'm part Cherokee!" on her job applications purely for career advancement and the associated personal gain (really,even if it were true), then there's no hope for a worthwhile conversation here. Why else would she do it?

Would you be so kind as to point out where she wrote "I'm part Cherokee" on a job application?

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Talk about myths. Opposition to or even criticism of goon teachers' unions means "you guys don't want people to be educated." From where I sit, there's no "war on education," other than the blitzkrieg led by Bob Chanin and the rest of his troops.

And a significant number of the teachers hanging out in rubber rooms had sex with students over the age of 18? Maybe even a majority? Got anything to substantiate that? I thought not. How's the air in the bunker?

Well as being educated doesn't seem like one of your strong suits, "from where you sit" doesn't hold a ton of weight, no offense of course.


So you can throw out unsubstantiated speculation ("these bums are just lazy") but I can't? I've got bad news for you, but it ain't a gonna work like that.

[Old Pio]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

Well as being educated doesn't seem like one of your strong suits, "from where you sit" doesn't hold a ton of weight, no offense of course.


So you can throw out unsubstantiated speculation ("these bums are just lazy") but I can't? I've got bad news for you, but it ain't a gonna work like that.

Oh, Bunky. You're really losing touch with reality, aren't you? When in doubt, go ad hominem. And is it asking too much (especially of someone implicitly asserting intellectual superiority) to ask that if you put quotation marks around it and attribute it to me, that it's actually something I said?

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012: You must choose the lesser of two weevils

You'd be more convincing if you'd stop asking a question that's already been answered. I highlighted it in bold to make it easy for you to figure out which misrepresentation that you can't seem to let go of is.

I didn't ask the question looking for an answer...I answered it myself in the same post...doesn't matter to me if Harvard did or didn't, what matters to me is what Warren did.

Pretty sure we both have raised or are raising kids, I don't think either one of us would teach them it is ok to lie or perpetuate a shaggy dog story as long as the receiving party didn't directly act on it. Is there a percentage of action at which it becomes ok? "Son, if it was only 5% of the decision it is ok to lie, if it is 25%, it is wrong?"

So, as I said in that post, even if she was the only applicant ...she still did something I feel was premeditated with the intention of implying a circumstance she knew wasn't accurate and knew could only help their chances of being hired.

The Yahoo CEO probably didn't need his imaginary CS degree to get the job either, but it sure got him fired in a hurry.

Of course, he should be held to a higher standard than a US Senator.

We all complain about the ethics of lawyers and politicians yet defend someone that would do something like this and wants to be not just a lawyer, but the teacher of other lawyers and a politician. Really?


While I'm accused of bringing this up due to the letter after her name, I think that applies far more to her defenders than I.