On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:39:52 -0300, "YukonBound"
wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .
...the priority in the DC school system.

http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z

Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start
losing
power.
--

John H


Too bad they weren't a bit more selective when you were substituting!

John Herring, stupid ass.

Guess what loser? Michelle Rhee is a Democrat.

Guess what loser? She's marrying a black man who's mayor of
Sacramento and a former NBA player, Kevin Johnson.

Frosts the space formerly occupied by your balls, eh?

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:00:08 -0400, John H
wrote:

...the priority in the DC school system.

http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z

Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start losing
power.

hmmm...rather strange in that obama specifically mentioned this plan
over a year ago...with approval.

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

unions dont destroy jobs. companies do

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:48:09 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/07/2010 8:57 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message
news
On 7/25/10 10:00 AM, John H wrote:
...the priority in the DC school system.

http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z

Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start
losing
power.


http://tinyurl.com/yew6cc5


32 minutes to swallow that bait. You're slowing down Harry. Seriously, is
this the beginning of the end of teachers unions? Will Bam Bam come down on
the side of the kids or the unions? Tough call for him because kids can't
vote. But on the other hand he did say he would foster quality education.
Was that another lie?


Depends, do the teachers unions pick up the ball and realize the product
quality of their members had better be part of the equation or not? For
if they impeed the process of teaching the children, then there is no
place for them.

if only the performance of companies was held to the same standard as
union members. in the US there is no penalty for killing your
employees, firing them if they're gay, or too old or if they want to
join a union. there is no penalty for destroying 10 million jobs.

but let unions do something, and the right wing goes ballistic.

On 25/07/2010 5:18 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:00:08 -0400, John
wrote:

...the priority in the DC school system.

http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z

Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start losing
power.

hmmm...rather strange in that obama specifically mentioned this plan
over a year ago...with approval.

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

unions dont destroy jobs. companies do

Bad management, corruption and unrealistic unions destroy companies.

Keep it clean and everyone wins. But unions are often we win and
everyone else looses types, when this happens, good management locks
then out cold. Replacing them if they don't come around.
--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:20:45 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 25/07/2010 5:18 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:00:08 -0400, John
wrote:

...the priority in the DC school system.

http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z

Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start losing
power.

hmmm...rather strange in that obama specifically mentioned this plan
over a year ago...with approval.

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

unions dont destroy jobs. companies do

Bad management, corruption and unrealistic unions destroy companies.

there are no unions in the US. and countries which DO have strong
unions also have a strong middle class.

Keep it clean and everyone wins. But unions are often we win and
everyone else looses types, when this happens, good management locks
then out cold. Replacing them if they don't come around.

fine. when you find the meta-country called the "US" where there are
unions you let me know.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

The other 15 million must have been union jobs

since there are no unions in the US...

and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed?

right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression
there were about 5 million

so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication

"John H" wrote in message
...
...the priority in the DC school system.

http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z

Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start
losing
power.
--

John H

I guess you (moron/liar) missed this part of the article:

"They also place the school system at the head of a national movement --
fostered in part by the Obama administration's $4.3 billion "Race to the
Top" grant competition -- to more rigorously assess teachers'
effectiveness."

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:28:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


since there are no unions in the US...

and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed?

right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression
there were about 5 million

The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing
boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses.

uh...unemployment was at about 4.5%. virtually every industry had full
employment.

Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession
Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame
for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now
don't they?)

bush inherited a balanced budget and ****ed it away with a war that
cost a trillion dollars

funny how you ignore that. no doubt because bush is white

and the dot com bubble? i was in the middle of it. it had nothing to
do with govt. i worked for lucent technologies. tech managers have
bigger egos than a goodyear blimp.

just like hedgefund managers


so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication


You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like
"100 million middle class workers". Why can't I?

I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save
so now they are working at the 7-11.

we have no unions in the US. you wanna blame monsters in under the bed
instead?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

The other 15 million must have been union jobs

since there are no unions in the US...

and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed?

right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression
there were about 5 million

The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing
boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses.
Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession
Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame
for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now
don't they?)

More nonsense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

Clinton has a surplus going and GWB crapped all over it.

so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication


You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like
"100 million middle class workers". Why can't I?

So, you admit you made it up.


I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save
so now they are working at the 7-11.


So, it's the union's fault that they couldn't save jobs?? .... that makes
absolutely no sense.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies?

answer: about 10 million.

The other 15 million must have been union jobs

since there are no unions in the US...

and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed?

right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression
there were about 5 million

The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing
boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses.
Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession
Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame
for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now
don't they?)

so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication


You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like
"100 million middle class workers". Why can't I?

I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save
so now they are working at the 7-11.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html