Bull...it's getting really hard to read your replies. You need to figure out how to use the quote tool.
MDV - My quoting style is basically the same as yours except that I initial my comments on long posts and use the quote tool, while you seldom or never use the quote tool.
Anyways, from looking at your post, it sounds like you're against leaving Iraq as it will lead to civil war. I'm not sure if there's much any president can do about that. Iraq is not a nation of like-minded folks. It's a nation of very different ethnic backgrounds combined with a warring tribal society. In many ways, a civil war is inevitable.
Regardless of that, things aren't really getting better right now, are they? There's more terrorism in Iraq than ever and we're still loosing American soldier's lives. On top of that we're now loosing the lives of all sorts of relief workers and private citizens from pretty much any country.
MDV ... and the terrorists are blameless.
Kerry's point is that you can't fight terrorism by going to war with a country. He's right. We need to approach this an entirely different way. Haliburton isn't the way.
MDV - By that logic, the terrorists and the Taliban government should have been ignored, and Afghanistan should never have been invaded.
As for unions, you seem to have your mind made up from a small number of personal experiences. So be it. Doesn't sound like I can change your mind on that.
MDV - I have worked in two jobs where the workforce is unionized. I have been in my present job for 15 years where I have worked with suppliers that were both union and non-union. I have seen ungrateful paper pushing union workers that earn over $100,000 shut down commercial trade on the west cost. Finally, every fall I see teachers hold children and families hostage.
Otherwise, I didn't see much else to responsd to.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
"most, if not all, unions abuse their persuasive powers within their respective industries. For example, the teachers' union has done everything they can to impose tenure laws and illogical pay raises based solely on service time and college degree. After tenure, do teachers even have to teach, let alone teach well? The answer is 'no', but thankfully I have yet to learn from such a teacher who willfully abuses such priveleges"
This seems to be yet another example of someone saying "I'm not a conservative BUT...[insert a bunch of conservative opinions]"
Virtually every right that workers have today was fought for and won by unions. Pick up any labor history book and you'll be stunned at the amount of violence directed at various unions by employers and by the state solely because they asked for humane working conditions. As for teachers unions and tenure, you don't seem to have much of a clue about that and yet that's the one example you use to support your assertion that "most, if not all, unions abuse their persuasive powers." In fact, since only the judicial and teaching professions use tenure, you are taking a very small percentage of the unionised workforce and using that to make a wider point about "abusive unions" that is almost laughable in its contrivance.
Tenure is a way of protecting scholars from unfair dismisal or other consequences that may arise as a result of their research or teaching. For example, if a professor raises controversial questions in his class and someone complains, he can't be fired as a result. This is an extremely important factor in ensuring academic free speech. To give two historical examples, tenure protected many professors from being fired when they taught that racial segregation was wrong. It also protected those professors who taught evolution from being punished due to pressure from outside the university. Furthermore, tenure is not a job for life. A university can fire a professor for financial reasons, for example. Tenured professors can also be fired for abusing their position, just as in any other profession. They just can't be fired for saying something controversial.
As for teaching and tenure, I think you'll find that (firstly) it's not at all easy to get tenure: you have to do an incredible amount of work and give up huge amounts of your time for unpaid research to get into a position where you have published enough in scholarly journals to even be considered for tenure. Contrary to your notion of rich professors, after research and publishing you usually OWE money rather than earn it. After tenure, professors usually do have to teach. However, as in outside industries, you'll find that the older and more experienced the professor, the less nuts and bolts teaching he has to do. You don't expect a CEO to clean the floors of his office do you? Why expect a 70-yr old professor with 50 years experience to waste his talents teaching first years when grad students and other less experienced faculty could do it perhaps equally as well? Believe me, grad assistants are very glad for the experience and the money whcih would not be available if every tenured professor was teaching 200-level classes. But those with tenure don't just sit around doing nothing when they aren't teaching. It may have escaped your attention that major RESEARCH universities actually need to focus on research rather than teaching to keep their accreditation, boost their funding, and so on. In fact, many universities rely more on research for funding than they do on income from teaching. Who do you think does this research and supervises less experienced faculty? Tenured professors. To say this is an "abuse" of the powers of unions is simply ridiculous. No doubt there are some useless old fools who should've retired long ago and who cannot be fired because of tenure. But it's a minor problem, not the gloom and doom picture you paint.
This seems to be yet another example of someone saying "I'm not a conservative BUT...[insert a bunch of conservative opinions]"
Virtually every right that workers have today was fought for and won by unions. Pick up any labor history book and you'll be stunned at the amount of violence directed at various unions by employers and by the state solely because they asked for humane working conditions. As for teachers unions and tenure, you don't seem to have much of a clue about that and yet that's the one example you use to support your assertion that "most, if not all, unions abuse their persuasive powers." In fact, since only the judicial and teaching professions use tenure, you are taking a very small percentage of the unionised workforce and using that to make a wider point about "abusive unions" that is almost laughable in its contrivance.
Tenure is a way of protecting scholars from unfair dismisal or other consequences that may arise as a result of their research or teaching. For example, if a professor raises controversial questions in his class and someone complains, he can't be fired as a result. This is an extremely important factor in ensuring academic free speech. To give two historical examples, tenure protected many professors from being fired when they taught that racial segregation was wrong. It also protected those professors who taught evolution from being punished due to pressure from outside the university. Furthermore, tenure is not a job for life. A university can fire a professor for financial reasons, for example. Tenured professors can also be fired for abusing their position, just as in any other profession. They just can't be fired for saying something controversial.
As for teaching and tenure, I think you'll find that (firstly) it's not at all easy to get tenure: you have to do an incredible amount of work and give up huge amounts of your time for unpaid research to get into a position where you have published enough in scholarly journals to even be considered for tenure. Contrary to your notion of rich professors, after research and publishing you usually OWE money rather than earn it. After tenure, professors usually do have to teach. However, as in outside industries, you'll find that the older and more experienced the professor, the less nuts and bolts teaching he has to do. You don't expect a CEO to clean the floors of his office do you? Why expect a 70-yr old professor with 50 years experience to waste his talents teaching first years when grad students and other less experienced faculty could do it perhaps equally as well? Believe me, grad assistants are very glad for the experience and the money whcih would not be available if every tenured professor was teaching 200-level classes. But those with tenure don't just sit around doing nothing when they aren't teaching. It may have escaped your attention that major RESEARCH universities actually need to focus on research rather than teaching to keep their accreditation, boost their funding, and so on. In fact, many universities rely more on research for funding than they do on income from teaching. Who do you think does this research and supervises less experienced faculty? Tenured professors. To say this is an "abuse" of the powers of unions is simply ridiculous. No doubt there are some useless old fools who should've retired long ago and who cannot be fired because of tenure. But it's a minor problem, not the gloom and doom picture you paint.
Bullwinkle. You're a good spud. You're a grumpy, cynical old fart - sterling qualities in my less than humble opinion. But your reply to Joey - "and the terrorists are blameless" - is totally pointless. Joey said of you on another thread, "You tend to flip a comment around into an inane counter-question. It's hard to carry on a conversation in that manner." This is a prime example of that. There are gaping holes in Bush's policies you completely ignore. It's no wonder MrJingles gets frustrated.
But your reply to Joey - "and the terrorists are blameless" - is totally pointless.
How is my question pointless? Bush has not committed a wave of kidnappings, beheadings and car bombings, and yet some will insist that Bush is mostly reponsible these three items. In addition some seem to insist that ignoring terrorists or "super" tyrants is the best policy. As you might know, ignoring a problem won't make it go away.
Believe me, grad assistants are very glad for the experience and the money whcih would not be available if every tenured professor was teaching 200-level classes.
Yes, we are very glad. It buys me dinner and puts a roof over my head every night.
And keep in mind that tenure is not a right freely given. As Holly correctly states, it takes a vast amount of time and effort, plus a bit of added prestige, to make tenure, with very little financial reward. But, similar to many other union activities, one poor teacher often is used to represent the whole.
MDV ... and the terrorists are blameless.
Bull...what are you talking about? Please stop spinning everything people say. Either respond intelligently with something to say, or just don't bother.
MDV - By that logic, the terrorists and the Taliban government should have been ignored, and Afghanistan should never have been invaded.
Well, more to the point, we should have found Osama. And we should have gotten him BEFORE he attacked us via intelligence we had years before (even back into Clinton's term).
MDV - I have worked in two jobs where the workforce is unionized. I have been in my present job for 15 years where I have worked with suppliers that were both union and non-union. I have seen ungrateful paper pushing union workers that earn over $100,000 shut down commercial trade on the west cost. Finally, every fall I see teachers hold children and families hostage.
And have you considered their side of the argument? Do you simply find all concepts of unions bad because a few unions have inconveniences your life? As for teachers, they have every right to strike. It's the only time we pay attention to them. ;o)
And, Bull...apologies for the quote tool remark.
The quote tool on this site is confusing at best and broken at worst. ;o)
The quote tool on this site is confusing at best and broken at worst. ;o)
"How is my question pointless?"
Because you used it instead of address my comments. You ignored them, and whipped out a question twisted in such a manner that it really doesn't matter how its answered.
GW has this tactic down to an artform. He's quite good at it.
But, since you asked, I *will* respond to it: of course terrorists aren't blameless.
You pose the question as an attempt to paint the opposing viewpoint as pro-terrorist. It works on a lot of folks, but a lot of folks see through that as well. ;o)
Because you used it instead of address my comments. You ignored them, and whipped out a question twisted in such a manner that it really doesn't matter how its answered.
GW has this tactic down to an artform. He's quite good at it.
But, since you asked, I *will* respond to it: of course terrorists aren't blameless.
You pose the question as an attempt to paint the opposing viewpoint as pro-terrorist. It works on a lot of folks, but a lot of folks see through that as well. ;o)
OK, let's try something else. Instead of me attacking Bush, and you defending him, why don't you give me a one paragraph sales pitch as to why I should vote for bush WITHOUT any mention of Iraq nor terrorism. Can it be done? That is my challenge to you! ;o)
Bush will primarily favor a free market economy, and will be less likely to invoke protection trade policies that would tend to push the world toward a recession. Bush will take a proactive stance on critical world security issues rather than taking an isolationist view of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.
Can you make a similar statement for Kerry without mentioning Bush?
Can you make a similar statement for Kerry without mentioning Bush?
OK, let's try something else. Instead of me attacking Bush, and you defending him, why don't you give me a one paragraph sales pitch as to why I should vote for bush WITHOUT any mention of Iraq nor terrorism. Can it be done? That is my challenge to you! ;o)
Bull's done that already in this thread.
The economy has improved and grown in the face of terrorism. Manufacturing materials are in short supply because of high demand. True, there are few new jobs, but that is primarily due to productivity improvements resulting from the "computer revolution". There are many American companies that have not been affected by imports because they work smarter not harder. There is still a niche for American know-how.
Now, far be it from me to put words in Bull's mouth, but I think it is fair to say that he's pretty much an economic conservative. Over the last few years, Bull has been pretty consistant when it comes to his economic views, and from what I can tell, they lean more to the laissez faire/free market side.
The conflict on QZ is that most posters here are socially orientated liberals who speak little to economic issues. If someone comes out in support of Bush (or Republicans in general), then the criticism here is directed at their social/foriegn policy record, and rarely aimed at economic factors.
Bush will take a proactive stance on critical world security issues rather than taking an isolationist view of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.
I wouldn't call being a multilateralist, as Kerry and many Democrats advocate, an "isolationist view."
"Bush will primarily favor a free market economy"
True. Free markets favour the rich. I'd really prefer someone like Nader, who favors free markets built upon fair markets.
Kerry is a 'if it's all we got, then we might as well take it' option when it comes to this. He's for things like cutting overseas tax shelters which help push us towards a fair market system.
"and will be less likely to invoke protection trade policies that would tend to push the world toward a recession."
Again, fair trade policies would prevent that.
"Bush will take a proactive stance on critical world security issues rather than taking an isolationist view of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away."
If you think that, so be it. I haven't seen any proactive effort on his part, nor do I believe your insinuation that another candidate would be for isolationism.
"Can you make a similar statement for Kerry without mentioning Bush? "
I can't. Well, not a great one, at least.
I can quote Kerry's environmental stance and pushing for more radical health care reform, but I'm not against admitting that we could have a much better alternative to Bush than Kerry. (Well, we do in Nader, but that's another debate.) ;o)
True. Free markets favour the rich. I'd really prefer someone like Nader, who favors free markets built upon fair markets.
Kerry is a 'if it's all we got, then we might as well take it' option when it comes to this. He's for things like cutting overseas tax shelters which help push us towards a fair market system.
"and will be less likely to invoke protection trade policies that would tend to push the world toward a recession."
Again, fair trade policies would prevent that.
"Bush will take a proactive stance on critical world security issues rather than taking an isolationist view of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away."
If you think that, so be it. I haven't seen any proactive effort on his part, nor do I believe your insinuation that another candidate would be for isolationism.
"Can you make a similar statement for Kerry without mentioning Bush? "
I can't. Well, not a great one, at least.
I can quote Kerry's environmental stance and pushing for more radical health care reform, but I'm not against admitting that we could have a much better alternative to Bush than Kerry. (Well, we do in Nader, but that's another debate.) ;o)
"The conflict on QZ is that most posters here are socially orientated liberals who speak little to economic issues. If someone comes out in support of Bush (or Republicans in general), then the criticism here is directed at their social/foriegn policy record, and rarely aimed at economic factors."
Very valid point. I know little about the complexityh of world economies. I don't think Bush, or any president for that matter has a huge direct effect on the economy (though the cost of the war is certainly contributing to SOMETHING) but I also know I have a lot to learn about economics.
Very valid point. I know little about the complexityh of world economies. I don't think Bush, or any president for that matter has a huge direct effect on the economy (though the cost of the war is certainly contributing to SOMETHING) but I also know I have a lot to learn about economics.
I don't think Bush, or any president for that matter has a huge direct effect on the economy
The extent to which a President influences the economy is debatable, but any effect is often seen by setting foriegn trade policies, vauling the dollar in relation to other economies, etc. How well these work, or don't work, is a debate for those more intelligent than I.
What the President can directly influence is economic realities for groups of people. By pushing through taxes/tax cuts, providing incentives for investments, and other similar minded things, the government can dictate how much "real" money a family makes. Reaganomics is a good example of how a President can change the economic conditions for a vast amount of people.