Give me a Break

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:36 am

Kerry announces he's buying a 140.00 Ohio hunting license and plans to hunt in Ohio....Hahahahahaha!
What a fool.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:03 am

*gives you a Kit-Kat bar*

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:54 am

He's so steeped in his own hypocrisy he probably doesn't realize how phony and transparent this will be to hunters in Ohio.
Now if he could just shoot himself in the foot literally while he's at it...

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:59 am

Just wondering, what's hypocritical about it?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:08 pm

kufyit wrote:Just wondering, what's hypocritical about it?

Kuffy, I don't know if you're flame baiting or genuinely incapable of figuring things out. I'll assume the latter.
1) Kerry has never in his life hunted in Ohio.

2) Ohio is a battle ground state with a lot of electoral votes.

3) Kerry full well understands how Algore lost his home state over gun rights

Hopefully you can extrapolate from here.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:09 pm

kufyit wrote:Just wondering, what's hypocritical about it?

Do you really think he's taking time out from his campaign to take in some hunting? And that hunt is just by coincidence happening in a swing state full of hunters?
If your answer is 'yes' check my ebay listing where I'm selling the Island of Manhattan, complete with occupants, you have just qualified for an exclusive Buy It Now option!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:10 pm

Heh Will...beat ya!

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 pm

Kufyit is just incapable of figuring things out.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:50 pm

It's totally politically motivated, no question. But it isn't hypocritical.

woodchip wrote:1) Kerry has never in his life hunted in Ohio.

If I meet a girl who surfs and decide to try it just to impress her, it isn't being hypocritical.

woodchip wrote:2) Ohio is a battle ground state with a lot of electoral votes.

Which is why it is prudent for Kerry to ensure name recognition and to try to convince folks that he is one of them. Every politician in history has done the same thing. It is a tried and true tactic.

woodchip wrote:3) Kerry full well understands how Algore lost his home state over gun rights

Which is why he should make sure he doesn't make the same mistake.

I see it as politics as usual, totally transparent, and maybe a little cheesy, but I don't see the hypocracy. If Kerry has spent his career lobbying against gun owners and/or hunters rights then yes, it would be hypocritical. Has he?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:04 pm

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Ker ... ontrol.htm

http://www.sportsmenforkerryedwards.com ... record.htm
(I don't like this one all that much, as it's a list by the NRA and therefore spun; nonetheless it is a voting record -- the NRA's full condemnation of Kerry is at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... spx?ID=161).

I'm looking for a list of Senate and HR bills on gun control. When/if I find one I'll post a list of Kerry's voting record on them.

Interesting note I found while browsing voting records: Kerry voted for No Child Left Behind.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:05 pm

Dedman, Kerry threw his support behind a Senate amendment (S.AMDT.2619, attached to S.1805) proposed by Senator Kennedy that could have, and still has the potential, to end deer/big game hunting nationwide. Yes, not just statewide but nationwide.

Senator Kennedy's amendment called for the ban of all ammunition that can penetrate Class I and II body armor commonly worn by police officers. He calls it getting "'cop-killer' bullets off the street." He proposes that a standard be set by performance tests of all ammunition and those that defeat the body armor would be banned. If this amendmant had passed, with candidate Kerry's support, we would no longer be able to purchase .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, or .30-30 Winchester ammunition for yearly deer hunting trips. Kerry threw his support behind a Senate amendment (S.AMDT.2619, attached to S.1805) proposed by Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy of Massachusetts that could have, and still has the potential, to end deer/big game hunting nationwide.
This is why Will so correctly calls Kerry hypocritical

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:33 pm

I guaranty Kerry doesn't shoot anything. He just likes playing dress-up for the press cameras but he won't risk a photo of Bambi's bloody carcass upsetting the small children and other living things this close to the election.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:14 pm

I have to concede the point to DC and Woodchip. I have never followed Kerry or his voting record. In light of his supporting the legislation referenced by chip, I would have to agree that if he gets the licence with the intent of actually going hunting, he would be hypocritical. Otherwise, he is just playing no-substance politics. But we already knew he did that.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:14 pm

bash wrote:I guaranty Kerry doesn't shoot anything. He just likes playing dress-up for the press cameras

Kind of like Bush on the U.S.S. Lincoln...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:35 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:
bash wrote:I guaranty Kerry doesn't shoot anything. He just likes playing dress-up for the press cameras
Kind of like Bush on the U.S.S. Lincoln...

Not quite. The military overwhelmingly supports Bush and was no doubt honored to have him dressed in their colors, in person, giving them a pat on the back. I doubt any of them doubted he was really the commander in chief or really proud of their efforts or really in favor of their activities.

Kerry showing up in Ohio holding a gun he voted to ban, shooting ammo he voted to raise the tax on to make it unaffordable, hunting among gun owners who overwhelmingly oppose his politics...

But yea, they were both photo opp's, it's just that one of the people wasn't posing as something he isn't in the photo.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:41 pm

Maybe it's fun to use words liberally. But maybe some of you should look up the word before you use it. No flame baits, I was actually asking a question, because I didn't see the "hypocricy". I did see the "opportunism" which in my understanding is a bit different.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:46 pm

True hypocrisy would be granting himself a hunting license and revoking the right from everyone else.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:51 am

I remember Chris Rock doing a comedy skit on guns. He called it 'Bullet Control' five thousand dollars for one bullet..

"I would blow your head off.. if I could afford it"

lol

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:24 am

I'm gonna get me another job, start savin' some money, and you a dead man! Better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:31 am

DCrazy, I think most voted for the No Child thing, only problem was that after Bush looked like a hero he underfunded it and now schools are broke. Schools here in Chicago have tremendous problems, and he only made them worse here. Oh well, is there a place you can go where you get to hunt people? I think hunting animals would be far less fun that tracking a human being. Kinda like that movie with Ice T.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:02 am

Zur: I probably should have started a separate thread for No Child Left Behind.

I think the biggest problem this country's education system faces is the lack of accountability. We need a standardized test administered nationwide in the fourth grade. If children cannot read, write, and do math at a fourth-grade level, we'll know exactly where the problem lies.

But wait, we already do. Inner-city schools.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:20 pm

Zuruck wrote:DCrazy, I think most voted for the No Child thing, only problem was that after Bush looked like a hero he underfunded it and now schools are broke.

Zuruck did you know the federal dollars a school gets is a very small percentage of it's budget, I believe less than 10%... combine that with the fact that Bush spent more on education than any previous president, in fact he spent *more* than the democrats in congress suggested!
So if your local schools are broke please look for a local scapegoat to pin it on.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:05 pm

Will Robinson wrote:So if your local schools are broke please look for a local scapegoat to pin it on.

I'll help. It's teacher salaries that are sucking up the funding.

Back in Oregon, schools were perpetually in a spending crunch. Every year, they'd come crawling over to the voters for more cash and a tax hike. But instead of putting that money where it belonged - educating kids - it merely went to the paychecks of teachers. Their salaries were up over 5% last year. The average paycheck for a grade school teacher is now just over $45,000, over $52,000 in California.

Not bad for a job where you don't necessarily work the summer and get tons of paid holidays and, once tenure is met, is practically a given.

To me, the school funding issue has never really been about them not having enough money or not receiving enough federal dollars. It has more to do with an immense overarching bureaucracy and the lack of intelligence when it comes to being frugal with spending. For starters, why do so many schools blow their technology budgets on expensive Apple computers? My district saved over $50,000 by going the Linux route, but try telling that to other school districts in the state begging for money right now.

Back during that dot com boom, economic times in Oregon were good. But the school bureaucracies set aside no funds. They spent every penny they were given. And now that the economic boom is over and recession has taken hold, they are still trying to operate at that same wasteful level.

The biggest problem is, in essence, legislative blackmail. Since the schools are completely unwilling to take cost-cutting measures themselves, like lowering salaries or getting retired employees off the elaborate pension system they have (some make more as retired teachers than when they actually worked), the public really has no choice but to "starve" them of funding. But, that forced starvation never works because the bureaucracy would sooner cut music and art programs than undermine its own clout.

And therefore, shamefully, the kids are the ones who pay the price for adult greed and bureaucracy.

So "No Child Left Behind" is something that has to go beyond throwing money on the problem or enacting certain standards. NCLB has to work to slash through this needless overhead and streamline the school system. You accomplish that, and we'll have a fiscally efficient school system we can be very proud of.

Course, I don't trust government to cut government...

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:06 pm

Yay for teacher's unions.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:47 pm

Unions blow.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:40 pm

teachers unions really blow.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:18 am

Jesus. I can't believe this.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:29 am

Seriously.. what's wrong with a teacher's union?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:51 am

Ferno wrote:Seriously.. what's wrong with a teacher's union?

Lets see Fernman, for the last 40 years we've been dumping money at education and every election cycle (both state and federal) we are told we need "more money" to fix the problem. So I am at the point where I think money is not the real problem but something else. I'll let you figure out what that may be (oops used the infamous "that")

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:06 am

Yeah, teachers unions REALLY "blow".

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:22 am

Union's in general blow. They keep the wages and other compensation artificially high in any industry where they thrive. This is turn makes the unionized companies in that industry less competitive than thier non-unionized competitors over the long run. The textile and steel industries are good examples of this.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:27 am

Yes, you're right. I guess it comes down to whether you believe that human beings are merely commodities that should be worked down to the lowest possible wage by the market or if you think that they are of intrinsic value (like other workers) who should work and join together to safegaurd their rights and dignity.

Yes, it distorts the market. But the market distorts the values of things difficult to measure - the status of human beings within a given society. These aren't f ucking apples were harvesting here, it's the next generation.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:43 am

Teacher's salaries are too high? HAHAHA, right.

My sister got a Master's in Education from UC Berkeley...she went to a private college before that in Minnesota called Carelton. 6 years of education cost around $150,000

Starting salary as teacher in Oakland, murder capital: $28,000

Those 40K and 50K figures are for teachers who have been around awhile. In CA 40K isn't a lot of money unless you are single without kids. If you have a family, its really not much.

She is one of the few intelligent teachers who could make a lot of money doing something else but loves the job and wants to do good. Most intelligent people are scared away by the low pay.

I agree, don't waste money on macs. If all you have is a smart person in a room with a blackboard, that's much better than some retard with an imac.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:49 pm

While you're at it, don't import dirt from Arizona to coat your sports fields. Try not giving every student in the school a top-of-the-line palm computer; get a much cheaper and almost as efficient PDA instead (/me guards his head from flying objects thrown by the doom 3 crowd). Get cheap or free operating systems for computers, like linux. Don't give your head supervisor $300,000 a year. Force teachers to do well by giving the kids standardized tests, and if a teacher isn't doing a good job, revoke their teaching license. Teaching a kid is a big deal, and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with taking an entire school out to see Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911" on opening day.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about these "public holiday" thingies. Kids get an average of one to two days a week off because of "public holidays" and "parent-teacher meetings" and "grading days" and the "first day of snow" and just about everything else that has more importance than a beetle crawling up a wall. You can't teach kids without actively pursuing knowledge and cramming it into their brains. While we're on the subject, what about those days that principals give kids off because it's "too cold outside" to have school? Since when have schools not had heating systems?

This stuff drives me up the wall. Instead of teaching our kids, we're letting them out of school at every possible time, we're throwing money at them instead of actually teaching them, and to top it off, we're tying schools, teachers, principals, and education in general up with red tape.

Talk about problems.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:58 pm

I wonder, what is the dollar per student figure we spend in america? I know it's more than any other country yet students from many other countries outperform ours.
So take that dollar per student number and give it back to the parents, close the government schools, mandate that parents must provide an education for their children and watch how fast the private industry in america rushes in to fill the void left by the closing public schools to earn those dollars per student!

And they will do it better than the government ever did!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:06 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I wonder, what is the dollar per student figure we spend in america?

It's less than what we spend on inmates in our prison system. Something's really wrong with that.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:24 pm

I think we all agree on this: the education system in America is royally screwed.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:17 pm

Hence the call for school-choice vouchers...

Treat grammar and high schools like college: each class costs a certain amount per semester/trimester/quarter, plus a general tuition fee (for things like internet access, etc). If you send your kids to public school, that money comes straight out of property taxes. If you elect to send them to private or parochial school, for every equivalent class they take in that school, that school receives the proper funds from tax revenue. Obviously since public schools don't offer religion classes, the schools won't be given money for students taking religion; they will have to charge extra tuition to do so.

You'll notice that teachers in parochial schools are paid far less than teachers in public schools, but are overall happier with their jobs. Additionally, private and parochial schools are considered far better at educating children in grammar and high school years (I'm the first to admit that 7th and 8th grade in Catholic grammar school are a joke). If the system I described were implemented, I would be shocked if public schools didn't start shaping up really fast.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:35 pm

kufyit wrote:Yes, you're right. I guess it comes down to whether you believe that human beings are merely commodities that should be worked down to the lowest possible wage by the market or if you think that they are of intrinsic value (like other workers) who should work and join together to safegaurd their rights and dignity.

Yes, it distorts the market. But the market distorts the values of things difficult to measure - the status of human beings within a given society. These aren't f ucking apples were harvesting here, it's the next generation.

The market should dictate the wage. If enough teachers say you know what screw this, and leave, schools and universities will start paying more.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:04 pm

Woodchip:

If this amendmant had passed, with candidate Kerry's support, we would no longer be able to purchase .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, or .30-30 Winchester ammunition for yearly deer hunting trips.

C'mon Woodchip you got to be kidding. At most certain grain weights of powder combined with certain slug jackets might be banned but a soft nosed round that can kill a deer has no need to penetrate body armour. And what about .303 caliber rifles. A lot of deer have gone down under those rounds.
I understand if you object to Kerry pretending to hunt game if he doesn't but don't go over the top and call a restriction on specific types of amunition the end of hunting in America. You really lose some cred with that kind of Bill O'Rielly crap.