Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Here's a disquieting AP story on this education business, headlined: "Education Bill Passes Key Test". It begins, "President Bush's ambitious education package..." Suddenly, the press loves Bush's plan! This isn't his "tactic" of doing what he said he was going to do. No, now he's "ambitious," because he's apparently changed his mind.
Writes AP, "President Bush's ambitious education package passed key tests in Congress, surviving a challenge in the House while the Senate proposed adding billions of dollars in funding for poor children and those with disabilities." How many decades have we been funding things for poor children? We should have wiped out poverty 20 years ago. But it's the same percentage as it's always been, isn't it? Isn't it time to try something new? "Oh, no, no, no," they tell us. "We just need a few dollars more on top of the trillions we've spent."
If I sound troubled, it's because I am. This is out of character for Bush, and it doesn't make any sense. What is being bought here? Are we going to get more tax cuts? Are we trying to get back some suburban voters who misunderstood what Bush's position on the environment was in the first place?
The AP story continues, "Annual testing in reading and math, cornerstone of Bush's plan, survived its first serious challenge as a House committee rejected a bid to kill the tests for third through eighth graders. In the Senate, lawmakers went on record in favor of far more funding, roughly $2 1/2 billion a year for ten years."
That's $2 1/2 billion a year more for ten years, a total of 20.5 billion. This is more than what Bush proposed for programs to help poor children and those with disabilities. "We owe our children no less," said James Jeffords, Republican, Vermont. The federalization of local education runs against everything we believe in, and that's what this education bill has become. That's why Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd and Jeffords are so excited.
The only group fighting this, and apparently losing are the conservatives in the House. Chester "Checker" Finn, the conservative who helped candidate Bush write his education plan, inspected the Senate-House fine print and said, "I'm fairly depressed. It's Potemkin reform. It's a facade, underwritten by billions in new spending."
In other words, Ted Kennedy is happy and "Checker" Finn isn't. I'm telling you,
folks, George W. Bush did not campaign on this education plan or on these
environmental policies. You could go look it up, because I'm confident you won't
find anything like this during the campaign.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
I saw a picture somewhere during the last presidential race that showed W surrounded by 10 'advisors'.
I checked them. NINE of the ten were menbers of the Coulcil on Foreign relations (CFR).
From that, I understood that there would be NO conservative in the White House this time.
W. is 'handled', and American conservatives will get NOTHING of real value from his presidency. Sorry.
Have been voting each election since the age of majority and am now 60. Moved from AZ to NM and did NOT REGISTER TO VOTE AND DID NOT VOTE, a first in my adult life, and, more than likely will not bother to vote again, it is a WASTE of diesel fuel to go to the polls.
The last 2 election cycles that the GOP has run have been abysmal brcause of the BEST that the GOP has to offer to vote for.
I QUIT and am moving to Mexico. Do not have that long to live and I WILL have peace and tranquility.....
BARF (*) alert. (*)BUSH APOLOGISTS REALLY FAUN.
Only those that want to convince the electorate that Bush is a social conservative will spin education as a Bush win. After the campaign 'wind done gone' the Union/Government coalition is still standing untouched.
Bush will probably tank on court appointments. Unless Bush drops his RINO team he will be done in like Rudman sneaked in Souter. But then again show me your company and I'll tell you who you are.
b(E) cause
Are you seriously going to sit here and spew "CFR Bogey-Man" garbage? Haven't you people decided to grow up YET!?!?!?
The last time the hardline, no-compromise, conservative vote counted was when they voted for Perot and the result was CLINTON....thanks for nothing. Politics is the brokering of votes and making compromises when necessary; Reagan did and Goldwater didn't. Rush strength is humor, he is a better humorist than a political analyist; ...e.g., Hillary will withdraw from the New York senatorial race.
...CFR garbage...haven't you people decided to grow up yet?
Thank you for your reply. As to "growing up", well, I am trying. Would you help me?
Without going into a 'long thing' about whether members of the CFR did, or did not, MEAN what they've SAID, let me ask you this: IF you were to find that 9 of 10 'advisors' to the president of the United States of America were...uhh, lets see,...born-again, evangelical Christians,....you don't care? What about 9 of 10 'advisors' being members of the National Board of Realtors? No problem? What if 9 out of 10 of the presidents 'advisors' were members of Handgun Control, Inc.? Does that look OK. to you? How about the KKK? Anything smell yet?
The CFR membership, being about 3600 or so, would seem very large and inclusive. However, when you consider that their members are chosen from all over the world, well, that would color it as just a bit more exclusive, don't you think?
Instruct me, please. Did Clinton's (CFR member) friend, Strobe Talbott (CFR), MEAN IT when he said, "..within the next hundred years...nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority"?
When State Department veteran R. N. Gardner (CFR), called for "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece", was he just kidding?
When Bush the elder (dropped his CFR membership just before making his presidential bid), said on television (9-11-90), "We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders", wouldn't you be a little curious as to just WHAT was "envisioned"?
The CFR founder that Bush Sr. mentioned, E. M. House, a Marxist, said he was working for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx". Do you suggest that Bush Sr. would bring it up and NOT KNOW what was "envisioned"?
O.K...Lets say you're right and I, as you said, have not 'grown up'. And forget the whole CFR thing. We'll consider the material I've read on the subject to be just joke books, O.K.? But allow me, in my very best adolescent-ese, to say that it would be of no consequence if the 9 of 10 were members of the Boy Scouts. Nine of ten presidential advisors belonging to ANY organization will, most certainly, tend to promote the goals, ideology and agenda of that specific group. And, allowing myself a bit of 'adolescent' latitude, your opinion about it, one way or the other, will suffice to adulterate not one whit of what I just said.
But try. After all, mine is but 'adolescent' opinion.
Am moving to Mexico...don't have long to live and will have tranquility..
AHhhh come on, dishedd! One day we'll all be dead and 'tranquil' forever. 'Til then, let's just give it all we got, O.K.?
Did you know that nearly 100% of all Americans born in the 19th Century are DEAD!?!?
Can we get to the bottom of that conspiracy?
100% of 19th century Americans are dead....Can we get to the bottom of this conspiracy?
You missed part of my post.
First, trying to avoid a 'wordy' post, I merely quoted 2 CFR men, one old (Gardner), and one current (Bush Sr.).
Also, YOU said 'conspiracy, not me. The CFR, in my opinion, is no more or less a 'conspiracy' than ANY group of like-minded individuals, joining and meeting voluntarily, to PROMOTE their own similar philosophy/ideology/agenda.
But, more specifically, my question was this; If 9 out of 10 advisors to ANYONE, belonged to the SAME organization, would this not tend to promote that organizations agenda?
Your options are,...yes,....no,...maybe,...I don't know,...or, I don't care.
Another cute little pseudo-cryptic insult will not serve me well, so please, speak plainly and kindly. Surely, you would not withhold your valusble insight from one who asks only an honest, simple question, would you?
And please, be specific.
Thank you for your patience.
Where's Illbay? Liberty's Pen is waiting for an answer...
You miss MY point. It is that in order for this to be an "ominous" thing, you have to PROVE that the CFR is, as you believe it is, a nefarious super-national organization out for world dominance.
I say it is a bunch of very boring policy wonks who get together to listen to each other present policy papers that would bore the rest of us to tears.
The fact that many in government are members is no more alarming than the realization that just about any physician you care to look up in the Yellow Pages is a member of the A.M.A.
Hope you're happy.
You have to prove the CFR to be for world dominance...
Proof is subjective. To submit to you gleanings from the dozen or so books I have read on the subject would, I suspect, not convince you. But then, convincing you isn't my job.
I do believe that men in high positions in government, business, academia, etc., do NOT say so many similar things, without CAUSE.
Either you have read the material or you haven't. If you have NOT, why do you suppose yourself fit to criticize me? If you HAVE read the material, you obviously reject every statement such as the couple I have quoted. And by "every", I mean by the hundreds.
If you would allow me a guess, I'd say the only thing you have looked at, in regard to the CFR, is their OWN claims to be just another 'good old boys' club.
It is conceivable to me that THEY may be as adept at avoiding answers to DIRECT questions as YOU are.I submit that to take, at face value, a self-appraisal from ANY source, is naive.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, jr., called the CFR a "front organization" for "the heart of the American establishment". Which would know more of the subject, Schlesinger, or you?
Newsweek said the CFR was "the foreign policy establishment of the U.S.". Are you miffed that Newsweek didn't check with you? And if I gave you a hundred more just like the preceding, would it not give you pause to re-think your position?
You say the CFR is just a "bunch of very boring policy wonks...". And you say this knowing that CFR guest speakers include such men as Nikita Khrushchev, Tito, Trotsky, Robert Mugabe, Marxists by the dozen, and communist Chinese? Alright. Freedom of ideas? Sure, we can go that far. But let me ask you this, friend; when the CFR eulogized Leon Trotsky in their publication 'Foreign Affairs', as follows:
He gave us, in a time when our race is woefully in need of such restoratives, the vision of a man. Of that there is no more doubt than of his great place in history.", do you think this public *ss kissing of an amoral murderer to be no more alarming than the AMA? Oh, brother! Don't even try to answer that!!
Now, if you are a sane person, you would be horrified if the CFR spoke so eloquently about John Wayne Gacy, or any of the more notorious serial murderers in America. But such kudos to a man who would make our worst serial murderer look merely mischevious, and THAT'S just 'policy-making'? E Gad, man! Slap yourself! Snap out of it!
Ordinarily, a talking crawfish, who flatly refuses to deal with a simple question, would p*ss me off (latin: chaffing of sensibilities). However, in this case, I think we just got off on the wrong foot. You're probably a pretty nice guy. And obviously, by your silence, you couldn't possibly have given a more clear answer to my question.
So, let me offer you this little gift. That's this invitation for you to step boldly to the bar of civility, and accept that you were a bit hasty in your initial rough treatment of me. It's alright. It won't hurt, and you will really feel much bigger and better for it. Here's all you have to do; just follow along, and type this:
Dear friend LP, after further deliberation, I DO feel that 90% of the presidents advisors, being members of the same organization may, just may possibly, tend to affect the policy-making decisions of the president.
You, LP, are the smartest, strongest, most handsome,...(Oh, O.K., you can skip that part).
Come on, pal, what do you say? Do I HAVE to be a moron for us to get along? Hmm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |