May 16, 2014
Universal preschool in Seattle - a tax measure coming to a ballot near you

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray unveiled his universal preschool plan for the city yesterday. Families making twice the poverty level would receive free preschool valued at $11,000 and all other families would receive subsidies, including the extremely wealthy or "1 percent". Naturally, the costs of this $58 million plan will be paid for with a tax increase.

In Seattle, more than 60% of preschool age kids already attend preschool or formal child care and many parents of those that don't have consciously made the decision not to. So it's not immediately clear there's a widespread problem requiring subsidies for all parents of preschoolers and tax increases for everyone.

More importantly, as I wrote in a blog post last month entitled "Universal preschool - a universally bad idea", there's scant evidence that there's any benefit from universal preschool programs, whereas there are massive costs in terms of both dollars and the impact of government intrusion into a market that is already serving parents and children very well.

As Murray's proposal states, only providers that meet the city's requirements will receive funding. Today there's a rich variety of different providers a parent can choose from to meet the needs of their particular children. Inevitably, preschool models will shift in order to be eligible for funding, reducing choice, experimentation and options for parents.

You can already see the cost of state regulations on Seattle preschools on display daily. For example, preschools that have adopted technology to better serve parents and their businesses keep track of attendance with software. But state regulators require them to have parents sign their children in and out on paper. So every day, hundreds of parents sign their preschoolers in to preschools at computer terminals and a second time on paper, then repeat the process when they collect their kids at the end of the day. If you like today's regulations, just wait for those that come with universal preschool!

Supporters of universal pre-K education point to a couple of studies that have shown benefits. My blog post went into the details of those studies and why they don't apply to universal preschool. Murray's proposal to spend $11,000 annually per student is barely more than half what was spent on one program often cited, which also included 1.5 hours per week of in-home visits by teachers, and it's a fraction of the $95,000 per student of the other most frequently cited study. Studies of programs in places like Georgia suggest that there are no measurable benefits from universal pre-K programs within a year or two of entering kindergarten.

As I concluded in last month's post: "While it's easy to argue that universal preschool is an idea that no one should support, a case could be made for providing funding to low-income parents who can't afford but would like to send their children to preschool. Studies do suggest...that there are longer term benefits from enrolling the poorest and most vulnerable in pre-K. But that's very different from asking...taxpayers to also subsidize children from families of the wealthy and middle class, especially those that would attend absent any subsidies."

Posted by Nicholas Kerr at May 16, 2014 11:00 AM | Email This
Comments
1. You Marxists are crazy, taxing yourselves into a left-coast Detroit. Who will be left to pay the taxes, after all the productive people flee? Especially for a program like Head Start that has shown no benefit. Are you going to have a car tax because people have a right to transportation... oh, wait, you hate cars. Gotta ride the choo-choo train.
Idiots.
Get ready, Nicholas, for MBS to call you a hack, because to hate children.

Posted by: someone that doesn't live in the city of Sociattle on May 16, 2014 01:18 PM
2. .
Nicholas Kerr, you've meandered quite a bit in your post to make a point. Allow me to meander a bit to counter it.

Your conclusion about the proposal to extend Seattle universal education from what is currently exists is "While it's easy to argue that universal preschool is an idea that no one should support, a case could be made for providing funding to low-income parents who can't afford but would like to send their children to preschool. Studies do suggest...that there are longer term benefits from enrolling the poorest and most vulnerable in pre-K. But that's very different from asking...taxpayers to also subsidize children from families of the wealthy and middle class, especially those that would attend absent any subsidies."

Despite anything Seattle's Mayor says, the issue is in no way about "subsidizing" and it is not about something called "preschool" or postschool.

The issue, Nicholas Kerr, that Seattle citizens face is whether the current educational system provides Seattle citizens the best educational system with the best education.

While if you believe there is some limit to the value of education which is defined by the quantity of years spent formally educating students, certainly others can argue that there is no upper level limit on the value of education.

Public education in the USA dates back to 1892. More than 100 years ago 'experts' believed that 12 years of public education was sufficient to make the USA competitive.

And in the 19 century we could have argued that a standard of education which was provided to all when the wealthy were already providing for their own children would be a "subsidy". We did not, and one of the results was that the USA became the dominant global economic and military power with the populace it publicly educated.

The data on a global scale is absolutely convincing. More education is better than less and better education for more is an advantage for every member of society.

The issue is not about subsidies but an understanding of return on investment.
More education for Seattle children will yield more for everybody.

Seattle will approve the Mayor's initiative and Seattle will reap the return on investment as easily as the USA did 100+ years ago.

Arguing the investment is a "subsidy" is a canard of fools or a deliberate attempt to distract and decisive. Which side of the line do you fall Nicholas Kerr?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 16, 2014 03:57 PM
3. The issue, Nicholas Kerr, that Seattle citizens face is whether the current educational system provides Seattle citizens the best educational system with the best education.

No.

The OTHER question, with the same answer, is whether throwing more money at it will make it better.

EVERY single study that has been done on Head Start comes to the same conclusion: there is no discernible benefit.

Why doesn't your mayor call it what it is: expensive DAY CARE. At least that would be truth in advertising.

Posted by: Rags, Mom who believes liberalism is the dishonest ideology of the simple-minded. on May 16, 2014 04:04 PM
4. .
"EVERY single study that has been done on Head Start comes to the same conclusion: there is no discernible benefit."

Citation Needed

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 16, 2014 04:30 PM
5. Citation Needed

I am not your information welfare provider. I'm sure (you think) you're capable of doing the research. Whether you'll be honest about what you find is another matter.

FURTHER, whenever I provide citations and facts, I get insulted. You don't get to have it both ways. Connect the dots.

Posted by: Rags, Mom who believes liberalism is the dishonest ideology of the simple-minded. on May 16, 2014 04:51 PM
6. .
@5 Rags, Mom who rightly tool advantage of ObamaCare and enrolled her son on her family plan on May 16, 2014 04:51 PM,

You wrote @3 "EVERY single study that has been done on Head Start comes to the same conclusion: there is no discernible benefit."

To prove your bullshit as false one only needs to provide one "study" which shows a different conclusion.

So, despite your inability to make your case upon actual facts & data and despite your ad hominem attack to obscure the baseless assertion you made when you were called on it, I'll be your "information welfare provider" to show you up, yet again, as one of the most ignorant and irrelevant idiots spewing right wing gliberatian nonsense on the internets.

How do we know that you are wrong about "Every single study..."

Long-Term Effects of Head Start on Low-Income Children [pdf]

There is now a body of evidence that at least suggests that Head Start generates long-term benefits and passes a benefit-cost test for children who participated during the first few decades of the program.

And yes, the study cited is offered by the very liberal University of Chicago where the very Marxist pro union and pro big guberment advocate Friedrich Hayek taught.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 16, 2014 05:08 PM
7. Rags makes a good point; the pre kindergarten program does make it somewhat more convenient for mothers and fathers to work. The assumption seems to be made that mothers and fathers working is a net Good Thing... and maybe it is.. it has made our economy grow and as a lot of "quality of life" issues are reported as statistics it certainly can be made to look good..more retail sales, more tickets sold, more houses built.

Involving the government in the socialization process of younger and younger children should tend to homogenize (and harmonize) at least part of the young brains. Some people are not well equipped to teach their children and the people most concerned about this condition want each child to share a similar understanding of the world they are beginning to see and hear and feel. The risk is that the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten tend to weaken and de-emphasize the family.. as government controlled teaching reaches children at a younger and younger age I think something is lost and the lost part may be an important part of humanity. Don't have time to raise your children? don't worry we'll take care of it.

Posted by: Kieth on May 16, 2014 05:18 PM
8. "The issue is not about subsidies but an understanding of return on investment. More education for Seattle children will yield more for everybody."

That statement is laughable and without tangible evidence. The return on investment is so vast that you leftists have trouble wrapping your brains around it and being specific about what those alleged benefits are.

"Seattle will approve the Mayor's initiative"

That may be so - I would put the passage of any policy that reeks of Detroit or other dilapidated inner cites past the informed and elitist electorate of Seattle-topia...

'and Seattle will reap the return on investment as easily as the USA did 100+ years ago."

Citation needed.

Posted by: KDS on May 16, 2014 05:21 PM
9. "Seattle will approve the Mayor's initiative"

That may be so - I would NOT put the passage of any policy that reeks of Detroit or other dilapidated inner cites past the informed and elitist electorate of Seattle-topia...

Posted by: KDS on May 16, 2014 05:23 PM
10. .
@7 Kieth on May 16, 2014 05:18 PM,

Tell us what you think the advantages or disadvantages are of 12 years of universal eduction from our 100 year + 'experiment' with education provided by a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

1) Should it be expanded beyond 12 years?
2) Should it be reduced to less than 12 years?
3) Should it remain the same?

Why? And with which data did you reach your conclusion?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 16, 2014 05:28 PM
11. @6 MBS- "And yes, the study cited is offered by the very liberal University of Chicago where the very Marxist pro union and pro big guberment advocate Friedrich Hayek taught."

Indeed, the University of Chicago was leftist even back when Hayek taught, but if you believe that Hayek was a marxist just because he taught there, that only shows how much of a liar you choose to be.

No truthful citation of your above assertion exists...

Posted by: KDS on May 16, 2014 05:30 PM
12. .
@9 KDS on May 16, 2014 05:23 PM,

Try to keep up. We're on a Nicholas Kerr post.

The danger is not "Detroit!" or Greece! or Acorn! or Russia! ...., teh danger is we'll end up like New Zealand!, because everybody knows that New Zealand is teh benchmark for educational inadequacy as evidenced by the logic Nicholas Kerr uses to make his argument about education.

lol

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 16, 2014 05:38 PM
13. Inevitably, preschool models will shift in order to be eligible for funding, reducing choice, experimentation and options for parents.

Why is this "inevitable"? If "In Seattle, more than 60% of preschool age kids already attend preschool or formal child care," then why should adding some of the remaining less than 40% have such a huge effect? Furthermore, it seems odd, at least to this reader, to assert that having more children in such programs will reduce choices. (That will happen eventually, with or without the city's action, because the successful programs will get emulated, but that's the result of the free market.)

"You can already see the cost of state regulations on Seattle preschools on display daily. For example, preschools that have adopted technology to better serve parents and their businesses keep track of attendance with software. But state regulators require them to have parents sign their children in and out on paper. So every day, hundreds of parents sign their preschoolers in to preschools at computer terminals and a second time on paper, then repeat the process when they collect their kids at the end of the day. If you like today's regulations, just wait for those that come with universal preschool!"

That's your example of "onerous" government regulation? Requiring a paper trail to ensure the safety and well-being of a child? Really?

Furthermore, how much "cost" is added, and if any, wouldn't the *elective* cost of the software be the way to count it? Can't a parent just choose a facility which does not so duplicate effort?

"So it's not immediately clear there's a widespread problem requiring subsidies for all parents of preschoolers and tax increases for everyone."

See you at the election! You get one vote, just like I do. May the best ideas win!

Posted by: tensor on May 16, 2014 05:45 PM
14. .
@11 KDS on May 16, 2014 05:30 PM,

In the spirit of cooperation to reach agreeable solutions to problems discussed here at (un)SP I will gladly agree to stipulate that all research, ideas and claims coming from or formulated or published by the University of Chicago are irrelevant and false because the Univ of Chicago processes of review are tainted with leftist bias.

Furthermore I agree we stipulate that from this point forward that anybody who quotes or cites research, ideas and claims coming from or formulated or published by the University of Chicago is wrong and a leftist idiot.

Do you agree?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 16, 2014 05:48 PM
15. @13 tensor on May 16, 2014 05:45 PM,

It is "inevitable" because he says it is, so shut-up.

And are we clear that Nicholas Kerr gets a vote? Is he a citizen? And if he is, should we really be giving an equal vote to an immigrant who was educated by the failed government run eductional system (Socialism!!!) of New Zealand?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 16, 2014 05:57 PM
16. FURTHER, whenever I provide citations and facts, I get insulted.

Yes, your gracious and factual response to my correcting you on the minimum-wage rate here in Washington state certainly showed us foul-mouthed liberals, didn't it? Had I corrected a fellow liberal that way, I'm sure she would have continued to get the fact wrong, would have snottily demanded an apology from me, and would have refused to admit her error throughout. Luckily for me, you showed us, by example, the superior values and behaviors of conservatives.

You must be so proud!

Posted by: tensor, Rags' information welfare provider since at least 2014 on May 16, 2014 06:54 PM
17. Re: 2, MikeBoyScout you're pointing the wrong finger at the person using the term subsidy. The person you accuse of being a fool or attempting to distract or decisive (sic) is Mayor Ed Murray himself in his action plan. The Seattle Times refers to the funding as subsidies in the article I reference, as does the mayor's plan itself: http://murray.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Seattle-Preschool-Program.pdf

As for your claim (no reference cited) that more education is better than less, at what point does it stop being better or does it continue to get better ad infinitum? No need to answer, because the answer is obvious. Your proposition is absurd. If that were the case, we should start educating kids as soon as they're born or at least as early as the age of one. We don't, because there's zero educational benefit from doing so. They're not ready. The evidence I cite on nkerr.com comes to the same conclusion when you look at existing universal preschool programs - any benefit is temporary and disappears within a year or so of kids entering kindergarten. The studies that have been conducted show that, for example, when you test a group of third graders, it's not possible, based on the results, to differentiate between those that went to preschool and those that didn't.

It will be interesting to see the yard signs in favor of this proposition. I can see them now:

"I support increasing taxes on the poor to help fund preschool for the 1 percent!" or

"I support higher taxes on childless straight and gay couples to help fund preschool for the 1 percent!"


Posted by: Nicholas Kerr on May 16, 2014 07:18 PM
18. As with everything the Obamabots propose, this is an equally shitty value. Where I live, you can send a kid to a top private school for about $12k a year. But it takes $11k a year for an Obamabot to school a preschooler.

I guess if you are that fucking stupid, it costs more to hire a whole team of union reliable Dem voters to do the job a single private sector teacher could do by herself.

But this is the party of million dollar pay toilets that did not work.

Posted by: Mike on May 16, 2014 07:24 PM
19. @mikeboyscout:

read what I said

Posted by: Kieth on May 16, 2014 08:05 PM
20. And the root problem for the Obamabots is that they want to fill the void they caused by destroying the two parent dynamic. It does not matter if they spend $111,000 per child per year. What makes a kid successful is the foundation of a dedicated set of parents. Parents that read to them every night and make sure they get sleep and good nutrition and encouragement.

The $11,000 per kid would be better spent educating voters about the failures of the Democrat welfare state.

Posted by: Mike on May 16, 2014 08:07 PM
21. As Murray's proposal states, only providers that meet the city's requirements will receive funding. Today there's a rich variety of different providers a parent can choose from to meet the needs of their particular children. Inevitably, preschool models will shift in order to be eligible for funding, reducing choice, experimentation and options for parents.

Studies suggest that this is not the case, or that the effects will be marginal at best (source). In fact, as wealthier families are receiving smaller subsidies here, the "experimentation" and "options" available are unlikely to substantively change since they will be less likely to put their kids into the same city-accredited child care programs.

So every day, hundreds of parents sign their preschoolers in to preschools at computer terminals and a second time on paper, then repeat the process when they collect their kids at the end of the day. If you like today's regulations, just wait for those that come with universal preschool!

Let me get this straight -- you balk at the idea of supporting preschools because a hardcopy attendance record is required in addition to a computer record? Aside from the fact that this is laughably inconsequential whining, paper records like that are actually good as a management practice across the board.

So yes, please regale us with stories about how your "choice" is improved because your child care facility would be really, really screwed in case of a fire or power outage.

Supporters of universal pre-K education point to a couple of studies that have shown benefits. My blog post went into the details of those studies and why they don't apply to universal preschool.

Unless you are currently working for the Seattle Times (and you recently changed your name to John Higgins), your link may need to be corrected.

Assuming that your last post on your other blog is what you are referring to, it simply does not go into any detail about why these studies are incorrect. In fact, you provide two examples that aren't even used by the state Early Learning Technical Workgroup as support for their recommendations, which are used in turn by the City to support the program.

So... wrong. Try again.

Studies do suggest...that there are longer term benefits from enrolling the poorest and most vulnerable in pre-K. But that's very different from asking...taxpayers to also subsidize children from families of the wealthy and middle class, especially those that would attend absent any subsidies.

So since (your) studies show "longer term benefits", your argument is not that subsidies are wrong, or even the tax increases are bad, just that middle-income people would be getting a break along a sliding scale?

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2014 07:47 AM
22. Do you agree?

Posted by MikeBoyScout at May 16, 2014 05:48 PM

Nope. We of sound mind and character disagree with your claptrap. Other gullible, misinformed and kool-aid drinkers might - check with @16 and @21.

Posted by: KDS on May 17, 2014 08:45 AM
23. @5. FURTHER, whenever I provide citations and facts, I get insulted. You don't get to have it both ways. Connect the dots.

You get insulted because you DON'T provide facts. You link to opinion pieces on Townhall.com and assume that the writing of someone smarter than you is "proof". (Which would be anyone, really.)

@7. The risk is that the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten tend to weaken and de-emphasize the family.. as government controlled teaching reaches children at a younger and younger age I think something is lost and the lost part may be an important part of humanity.

If you wish to promote the idea of mandated maternity and paternity leave, similar to what is found in some European countries, I'm all ears. That would do a great job to re-emphasize the family, and I'm sure that you'd get a lot of supporters that aren't old or childless white male Republicans.

@8/9: That may be so - I would put the passage of any policy that reeks of Detroit or other dilapidated inner cites past the informed and elitist electorate of Seattle-topia...

Because there's nothing that says "dilapidated inner city" more than greater educational outcomes.

@12: The danger is not "Detroit!" or Greece! or Acorn! or Russia! ...., teh danger is we'll end up like New Zealand!, because everybody knows that New Zealand is teh benchmark for educational inadequacy as evidenced by the logic Nicholas Kerr uses to make his argument about education.

Nicholas does have a point with certain historical issues with New Zealand. (It may just be that I have a friend who is a Tory living in Lower Hutt that talks my ears off about such things.) Their economy was extremely sclerotic in the 1970s and 1980s because of the decline of their economic relationship with Britain, and they needed to broaden foreign investment in the country. Decades of regulation and programming that had been created knowing that they had a reliable trading partner in Britain needed to be overhauled, and for good reasons.

Still, when Tories have a hammer, all they see are nails. 2014 Seattle is not 1975 Wellington.

@17. It will be interesting to see the yard signs in favor of this proposition. I can see them now: "I support increasing taxes on the poor to help fund preschool for the 1 percent!" or "I support higher taxes on childless straight and gay couples to help fund preschool for the 1 percent!"

And how is this different from... errr... the current educational system everywhere? With very few exceptions, anywhere that you live in the US supports higher property taxes to fund education for the 1 percent. (They may not take it and go for private options instead, but that's not relevant to your point or mine... it's still available.) The primary difference here is that the middle-class needs to pay more for publicly-funded pre-school when they get public school for free.

@18. As with everything the Obamabots propose, this is an equally shitty value. Where I live, you can send a kid to a top private school for about $12k a year. But it takes $11k a year for an Obamabot to school a preschooler.

If you want to send a preschooler to a "top private school" for teenagers, go right ahead. Otherwise, the costs for preschoolers can actually be more per pupil. Pre-school educators need to be trained, and you have to have lower child-teacher ratios. You're not simply getting that teenager that babysits your kids to look after a room of 30 toddlers.

I guess if you are that fucking stupid, it costs more to hire a whole team of union reliable Dem voters to do the job a single private sector teacher could do by herself.

The best evidence that you are that fucking stupid is that you don't know anything about preschool or child care but decide to talk about it anyway.

But this is the party of million dollar pay toilets that did not work.

So? They work well in plenty of other cities to address a problem. It's not a failure of the concept, just the execution.

@20: And the root problem for the Obamabots is that they want to fill the void they caused by destroying the two parent dynamic.

Who precisely destroyed the "two parent dynamic"? I must have missed the "Lousy Parents Act" passed by Congress last year.

It does not matter if they spend $111,000 per child per year. What makes a kid successful is the foundation of a dedicated set of parents. Parents that read to them every night and make sure they get sleep and good nutrition and encouragement.

As touching as that is, no one can force a parent to be a good parent to their child. However, when it comes to things like education, there are ways of ensuring that lousy parents won't doom good kids to a life of failure. Your opportunities in life should not simply boil down to a genetic lottery.

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2014 08:46 AM
24. @23: We of sound mind and character disagree with your claptrap.

No, you of "sound mind" and "character" cannot seem to understand concepts of sarcasm and evidence. Makes me think you don't have either! :)

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2014 08:50 AM
25. The evidence I cite on nkerr.com comes to the same conclusion when you look at existing universal preschool programs - any benefit is temporary and disappears within a year or so of kids entering kindergarten. The studies that have been conducted show that, for example, when you test a group of third graders, it's not possible, based on the results, to differentiate between those that went to preschool and those that didn't.

His support for that is this quote:

"... by the end of first grade, children who did not attend preschool had skills similar to those of Georgia's preschoolers."

Which he ripped out of this paragraph of the report he cites::

"While comparisons with other programs are informative, the differences between children in different groups cannot be construed as an estimate of the effects of Georgia Pre-K. To the extent that parents made good choices when selecting their children's preschools, those choices complicate the comparison of differences across programs. It is possible to say that the growth of skills for children attending Pre-K was parallel to the growth of children in privately funded preschools or in the federally funded Head Start program, when differences between the groups are controlled statistically. By the end of first grade, children who did not attend preschool had skills similar to those of Georgia's preschoolers. The children who did not participate in preschool had some advantages in home resources, and these children's mothers may have been less likely to work outside the home."

That's some hacking worthy of Adam Faber; Mr. Kerr simply ignored all of the qualifying factors when he ripped the quote out of context. But I'm glad he mentions the report, since it supports what Mayor Murray proposes; I encourage everyone with an interest to read at least the executive summary, from which these quotes are taken.

Posted by: tensor on May 17, 2014 12:51 PM
26. This free day care is the natural and predictable conclusion to the $15 minimum wage. I'm sure you loud lefty's can puzzle it out.

Really, I truly hope you Seattle lefty's get every thing and exactly what you want.

Look to history (try "bankrupt Detroit", "Gallup poll, 25 percent of Illinois residents say it is the worst state to live" [Sucks to be Boeing these days - leaves WA for a miserable place to live - what's that say?], "Remington leaving New York for Alabama", "Toyota officially leaving California for Texas" "Wealthy leaving NY"... and, of course, think back to the closest comparison and cautionary tale of "California property taxes, 1980's") to find out why.

I am the biggest cheerleader for every Seattle liberal, socialist and Marxist getting every single thing they want: every tax, every dictum, every social "solution", every libertine excess.

"May you get all you wish for."

979 days

Posted by: Rags, who wants the simple-minded lemmings of the dishonest ideology known as 'liberalism" to have e on May 17, 2014 01:27 PM
27. @26: This free day care is the natural and predictable conclusion to the $15 minimum wage. I'm sure you loud lefty's can puzzle it out.

So your argument is that poor people should be given a lousy education and enslaved in low wage jobs in this economic system? Yep, that's pretty much par for the course for conservatives. You like freedom, choice, and opportunity, but just for yourselves -- everyone else should be forced into servitude. How pathetic.

Look to history (try "bankrupt Detroit", "Gallup poll, 25 percent of Illinois residents say it is the worst state to live" [Sucks to be Boeing these days - leaves WA for a miserable place to live - what's that say?]

Look to WHAT history? You're pointing out that an industrialized state that has suffered for decades from a decline in manufacturing is related to free pre-school. In what universe is that even remotely relevant? I didn't realize that free preschool in Detroit in the 1980s was what pushed them into decline.

"Remington leaving New York for Alabama", "Toyota officially leaving California for Texas" "Wealthy leaving NY"...

And? You're getting companies moving from higher cost-of-living places to lower ones, or to places where they've been outright bribed by the state government. That happens regardless of an inconsequential increase to property taxes.

In fact, one can make a counter-argument: companies that actually want to retain key employees would be far more willing to relocate to a city with a high quality-of-life like Seattle than to the middle of nowhere in Alabama.

and, of course, think back to the closest comparison and cautionary tale of "California property taxes, 1980's") to find out why.

You mean when lunatics in the state government kneecapped local governments, and then were surprised when they declared bankruptcy from a lack of revenue? It is stories like that which cast the purported "economic wisdom" of conservatives into extreme doubt.

Posted by: Rags, who wants the simple-minded lemmings of the dishonest ideology known as 'liberalism" to have e on May 17, 2014 01:27 PM

Pffft. Given how much you repeat party line, you don't exactly seem like a free thinker there.

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2014 03:51 PM
28. @27: 979 days

It will be incredibly amusing when that goes back up to 1461 days in January 2017. Are you in fact waiting for President Godot?

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2014 04:07 PM
29. You mean when lunatics in the state government kneecapped local governments, and then were surprised when they declared bankruptcy from a lack of revenue? It is stories like that which cast the purported "economic wisdom" of conservatives into extreme doubt.

No when they were priced right out of their beloved California by high taxes and migrated to places like WA and OR where they proceeded to californicate them like they did the state they abandoned . . . hence Seattle and Portland


So your argument is that poor people should be given a lousy education and enslaved in low wage jobs in this economic system? Yep, that's pretty much par for the course for conservatives. You like freedom, choice, and opportunity, but just for yourselves -- everyone else should be forced into servitude. How pathetic.

Except you loud lefty's - and I think it was/is tensor in particular - - that claim that Seattle is full of successful upwardly mobile folks and therefore belies the fact of the crappy Obama economy the rest of the country suffers. Hmm - which way do you want it? Do you know? Do you have too many that don't need free day care or too many that do? Kinda screws your argument, eh?

Why are you arguing against getting everything you want? I'm certainly not.

I want you to have every single thing you want - just like you got with glee and bragging with your Obamessiah.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 17, 2014 04:09 PM
30. It will be incredibly amusing when that goes back up to 1461 days in January 2017. Are you in fact waiting for President Godot?

Nope, I'm waiting for sloppy seconds Hillary the woman you threw overboard for the slimy smile of "hope and change" - just like YOU are. Happy Second Best! God how I hope you get her. We've seen how well that's worked out in every "job" she's had so far. I believe she was against calling Boko Haram terrorists before she was FOR calling them what they are. Naked political expediency, anyone?

979 days

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 17, 2014 04:16 PM
31. @29. No when they were priced right out of their beloved California by high taxes and migrated to places like WA and OR where they proceeded to californicate them like they did the state they abandoned . . . hence Seattle and Portland

I don't even know half the gibberish you're trying to spew in that sentence (was it even a sentence?), but the high cost of living in California and low cost of living in the Pacific Northwest in the 1990s wasn't quite due to high taxes. It's quite easy to get priced out even if tax rates stay the same.

Except you loud lefty's - and I think it was/is tensor in particular - - that claim that Seattle is full of successful upwardly mobile folks and therefore belies the fact of the crappy Obama economy the rest of the country suffers.

Again, gibberish. You might want to check yourself for a stroke, or at least for a coherent argument. We're talking about the city of Seattle, and not wandering off to talk about the economy in the Rust Belt, which is not relevant for child care.

Hmm - which way do you want it? Do you know? Do you have too many that don't need free day care or too many that do? Kinda screws your argument, eh?

If you made one, then maybe. As it stands, if this improves the quality and access to pre-school that can help children succeed, I'm all for it. Nothing that Nicholas said here would suggest otherwise... and in fact he has said that he can see the value of subsidies to the poor for pre-school.

Why are you arguing against getting everything you want? I'm certainly not.

It seems like everything you do is out of spite, Rags. You must be really fun at parties. (When you don't shoot the guests, of course.)

I want you to have every single thing you want - just like you got with glee and bragging with your Obamessiah.

Again, that doesn't make sense. I preferred Obama to McCain and Romney because of their policy differences. What difference does that make?

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want

That's better -- you actually fit it in the character limit this time.

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2014 04:26 PM
32. @30: Nope, I'm waiting for sloppy seconds Hillary the woman you threw overboard for the slimy smile of "hope and change" - just like YOU are. Happy Second Best! God how I hope you get her.

Whatever -- I'm kinda over the cult of personality it seems like you're invested in. I'm even getting fed up with both parties. However, I'm amused that you are counting down for something that does not matter, and simply may not come to pass. And, of course, if you don't get your own way, you'll be all whiny and butthurt, even if it reflects the will of the people in a democratic system.

We've seen how well that's worked out in every "job" she's had so far. I believe she was against calling Boko Haram terrorists before she was FOR calling them what they are. Naked political expediency, anyone?

Grasping at straws, anyone? There hasn't been a cogent argument showing that a declaration would have made a difference in the slightest.

Posted by: demo kid on May 17, 2014 04:33 PM
33. Again, gibberish. You might want to check yourself for a stroke,

It seems like everything you do is out of spite, Rags.

Dear Demagogue - thanks for proving invective is all you have.

Whatever -- I'm kinda over the cult of personality

OMG - laugh of the YEAR! On the the other hand, it certainly took you long enough - say, since 2008.

Grasping at straws, anyone? There hasn't been a cogent argument showing that a declaration would have made a difference in the slightest.

Oh really? Refusing to declare them a terrorist organization wouldn't have made a difference? Grow the hell up:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

"The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn't use. And nobody can say she wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy," said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. "The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials."

... placing an organization on the terrorist list enables the government to use various investigative tools for law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering purposes. It also squeezes the organization by criminalizing the provision of material support to it and the conduct of business with it.

How about that great infamous Hillary Russia 'reset' debacle - how'd that work? Oh yes. Putin is on the march destroying people, you know, HUMAN BEINGS in his way.

Whatever

Bingo! Perfectly encapsulates your mindset. Thanks!

Good luck left-over sloppy seconds! If I remember correctly, and I do, demoKID was all about you back before Comedy Central told him to worship the slimy - oops did I say slimy? TYPO! Surely I meant SHINY smile of hope and change

So your argument is that poor people should be given a lousy education and enslaved in low wage jobs in this economic system? Yep, that's pretty much par for the course for conservatives. You like freedom, choice, and opportunity, but just for yourselves -- everyone else should be forced into servitude. How pathetic.

Servitude? Hyperbole much? Would they prefer NO jobs in a city they already can't afford?

Seattle, WA average salary is $75,539, median salary is $70,000 with a salary range from $18,987 to $1,644,000. Seattle, WA salaries are collected from government agencies and companies. Each salary is associated with a real job position. Seattle, WA salary statistics is not exclusive and is for reference only. They are presented "as is" and updated regularly.

***

Seattle Financial Statistics Median household income (per year) $49,732 Income change over time (increase since 1990) 60.59%
Seattle Housing Median home price $308,329 Home price gain (2-5 year gain) 10.57%

***

Seattle Home Prices & Values $441,500 Zillow Home Value The median home value in Seattle is $441,500. Seattle home values have gone up 8.0% over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 5.5% within the next year. The median list price per square foot in Seattle is $318, which is higher than the Seattle Metro average of $172. The median price of homes currently listed in Seattle is $410,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $419,948. The median rent price in Seattle is $1,695, which is higher than the Seattle Metro median of $1,500

***

Median Sales Price in Seattle $412,000 The median sales price for homes in Seattle WA for Feb 14 to May 14 was $412,000. This represents an increase of 0.8%, or $3,350, compared to the prior quarter and an increase of 4.8% compared to the prior year. Sales prices have appreciated 14.4% over the last 5 years in Seattle. The average listing price for Seattle homes for sale on Trulia was $713,617 for the week ending May 07, which represents a decline of 1.7%, or $12,175, compared to the prior week and a decline of 2.4%, or $17,915, compared to the week ending Apr 16. Average price per square foot for Seattle WA was $358, an increase of 14.7% compared to the same period last year. Popular neighborhoods in Seattle include Belltown, Broadway, Greenwood, Briarcliff, East Queen Anne, and Wallingford.

***

Rent trend data in Seattle, Washington As of April, 2014, average apartment rent within 10 miles of Seattle, WA is $1540. One bedroom apartments in Seattle rent for $1381 a month on average and two bedroom apartment rents average $1846.

***

Average Rent for Seattle Type Bedrooms Average Apartment 1 Bedroom $1,160 Apartment 2 Bedroom $1,374 Apartment 3 Bedroom $1,749 Apartment 4 Bedroom $2,663 Apartment 5+ Bedroom $2,923 Apartment Studio $1,100 Condo-townhome 1 Bedroom $675 Condo-townhome 2 Bedroom $976 Condo-townhome 3 Bedroom $1,535 Condo-townhome 4 Bedroom $1,643 Single family home 2 Bedroom $1,050 Single family home 3 Bedroom $1,499 Single family home 4 Bedroom $1,719 Single family home 5+ Bedroom $2,226

***

Rental Rates in Seattle Average Rental Rates | Last 12 Months


Median:
All Beds $1610
1 Bed $1618
2 Beds $2135
3+ Beds $1850
Average:
All Beds $1772
1 Bed $1644
2 Beds $2257
3+ Beds $2292

All of which brings us full circle back to the UNANSWERED point I made in the minimum wage discussion: if you Seattle socialists truly want to help the poor in Seattle, mandate/demand LOWER prices across the boards in taxes, rental prices, consumer prices and utilities. Everyone benefits.

As far as free day care - what poor people who need it can afford to live in Seattle? So for whom are you Seattle scialists doing it? Oh yes, political talking points ... and feeding the 'do something' monster.

Taxing people more in a city they can already ill afford to give them something 'free' is ... insane at best.

***

May the Lord let His light shine upon him. May he rest in peace, Amen. You'll be missed Fr. Brian. God bless you.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 17, 2014 09:43 PM
34. @33: Dear Demagogue - thanks for proving invective is all you have.
My greatest weapon is actually stringing together words into sentences that make sense. Definitely not a skill you show.

OMG - laugh of the YEAR! On the the other hand, it certainly took you long enough - say, since 2008.
I don't express hero worship here. (Maybe rarely, but not about Obama if I can recall.) Heck, I still haven't read Dreams of My Father, nor do I plan to. On the other hand, you're still here trying to obsessively nitpick about personalities in absurd ways, fixating on Clinton and Obama as the focus of your hatred. (Secret love, maybe?)

Move on already. Argue to the policies, not the person.

Oh really? Refusing to declare them a terrorist organization wouldn't have made a difference? Grow the hell up:
"Growing the hell up" involves being objective, and you're falling short of the mark. You're simply cherry-picking evidence with 20/20 hindsight, not contributing to a rational policy discussion. You're less than a useless child throwing a temper tantrum... you're a partisan with a foolish axe to grind and little actual evidence to support your assertions.

... placing an organization on the terrorist list enables the government to use various investigative tools for law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering purposes. It also squeezes the organization by criminalizing the provision of material support to it and the conduct of business with it.
An organization that pretty much exists as disconnected, highly decentralized cells in rural Nigeria? Brilliant. Let me know how the international travel bans work. Declaring them to be a terrorist organization would have provided a weak regional terrorist group with the high-profile exposure they would need to become more popular in an already unstable area. Likewise, it was a move that would have legitimized what was seen as the national government's implicit suppression of Muslims in those areas, and would have lit up the area like a powder-keg. Not to mention that it is questionable as to whether this type of designation even works.

You don't have the honesty or character to tell the truth here -- Republicans are manufacturing weak "scandals" to drag down a 2016 candidate that hasn't even announced her candidacy. It's amusing to see -- the "throw shit at the wall, see what sticks" attitude is pretty fascinating in practice, especially for the folks that believe it means anything.

As an aside, though, I just wonder why this ongoing conflict is a big thing NOW. I've read plenty of analysis, but I'm suspicious that this is going to cover up some bigger internal and external moves that have little to do with rescuing kidnap victims. But heck, you probably wouldn't try to understand complex international affairs even if they were written on the back of your hand.

How about that great infamous Hillary Russia 'reset' debacle - how'd that work? Oh yes. Putin is on the march destroying people, you know, HUMAN BEINGS in his way.
Like in Georgia, right? Nice to see that American boots on the ground sent by President Bush made a difference, especially in a case where Russia actually invaded a sovereign country. I'd also like to hear from the hawkish talking heads about how arming Ukrainian nationalists and having them shoot Russians would REDUCE tensions in eastern Ukraine.

Conservative critics consistently preaching humiliation and isolation for Russia seem to be amazingly blind to is that you cannot simply ignore them. Even aside from having a veto on the UN Security Council, the country is large and has friends that the US does not have. Shutting them out of any and all diplomacy does nothing to further our goals in Iran, Syria, or other countries.

Servitude? Hyperbole much? Would they prefer NO jobs in a city they already can't afford?
It's actually not hyperbole. From my time chatting with conservatives, this isn't far from the right-wing worldview preached by most.

You go on to quote housing prices, which would technically decrease with a change in property taxes, and household income, which will not be affected by a minute property tax increase for universal pre-school.

All of which brings us full circle back to the UNANSWERED point I made in the minimum wage discussion: if you Seattle socialists truly want to help the poor in Seattle, mandate/demand LOWER prices across the boards in taxes, rental prices, consumer prices and utilities. Everyone benefits.
This literally makes no sense, as it could never happen. Saying that your point is "unanswered" when it is simply absurd isn't accurate.

As far as free day care - what poor people who need it can afford to live in Seattle? So for whom are you Seattle scialists doing it? Oh yes, political talking points ... and feeding the 'do something' monster.
So your position is that no poor people live in Seattle, then?

Taxing people more in a city they can already ill afford to give them something 'free' is ... insane at best.
Get over it. First, this is a levy going to ballot, which means that the electorate makes the decision as to whether this will make sense or not. Second, believing that the current property tax rates in Seattle are something that people can "ill afford" is overgeneralized claptrap, and ignores the effective reductions from I-747 over the past 15 years.

You may wish to live in a burnt cesspool, but some folks actually want to live in a community with a high standard of living.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 01:20 AM
35. The real question is, does Andrew the demo kid still operate NPI from his parents basement?

Posted by: Smokie on May 18, 2014 06:26 AM
36. .
@
@17 Nicholas Kerr on May 16, 2014 07:18 PM,

What's up with this complete & utter bullshit?

"As for your claim (no reference cited) that more education is better than less, at what point does it stop being better or does it continue to get better ad infinitum? No need to answer, because the answer is obvious. Your proposition is absurd. If that were the case, we should start educating kids as soon as they're born or at least as early as the age of one. We don't, because there's zero educational benefit from doing so. They're not ready. "

Your reply to my comment is a string of weak straw men worthy of wingnut commenter Rags.

Yes sir, at no point in human development does becoming more educated stop getting better. The law of diminishing marginal returns does not apply. I'd ask you to think about that, but apparently your current level of education inhibits you on this front.

The funniest part of your reply is the bizarre notion that human parents don't start educating their kids as soon as they are born. Of course we do!

And more to the point of Seattle Mayor's proposal to act upon the City Council's 2013 unanimously adopted resolution to make voluntary high-quality preschool available and affordable to Seattle's children, I don't recall any candidate for office running against the concept.
I suspect the reason for that is that better and more education for our children is a very popular idea.
But I'll be looking for the sign in front of your house.

Oh, and I love your undoubtedly very real concern for the well being of "gay couples". Doubtless you have been on the frontlines for marriage equality since you moved to Seattle. Why else would you bring up "gay couples"?


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 18, 2014 08:33 AM
37. @36: Yes sir, at no point in human development does becoming more educated stop getting better. The law of diminishing marginal returns does not apply. I'd ask you to think about that, but apparently your current level of education inhibits you on this front.

There is a general point about the efficacy of education -- there can be some marginal returns at least when it comes to the public good associated with education. An intro to juggling course with a local continuing ed program or the classroom education of one-year-olds wouldn't provide the public goods that would suggest government involvement. I wouldn't place that above, say, maintaining strong undergrad engineering programs at state universities, either.

But hey, when Nicholas explicitly states that "a case could be made for providing funding to low-income parents who can't afford but would like to send their children to preschool", he kinda blows his entire argument about pre-school out of the water. You cannot state that it is useless in one sentence, and then say there is a case for supporting it in another.

Oh, and I love your undoubtedly very real concern for the well being of "gay couples". Doubtless you have been on the frontlines for marriage equality since you moved to Seattle. Why else would you bring up "gay couples"?

Again, he can certainly make the argument about how the childless heavily subsidize public education. However, it boggles the mind about the lack of foresight and the craven greed of many folks that argue that point. A better educated labor pool is one of the major elements of global competitiveness and local quality-of-life. Believing that the childless derive zero long-term benefits from a good public education system is seriously addled.

(And his statement assumes that gay couples don't have children, which is patently false as well.)

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 11:02 AM
38. Move on already. Argue to the policies, not the person.

As I remind you of YOUR own words, Mr Pot:"Again, gibberish. You might want to check yourself for a stroke"

"It seems like everything you do is out of spite, Rags".

Do as I say and not as I do or simple minded hypocrisy AGAIN writ large? You decide.

Get over it.

Ah the concise convincing rebuttal we've come to expect. Thanks.!

By the way:

Pragmatism vs. radicalism


American media ignoring sweeping victory for pro-free market/anti-Islamist Modi.

While the American mainstream media has virtually ignored this embrace of free markets and anti-jihadism, the Obama administration will soon be forced to back-peddle and deal with a man it has barred from receiving a visa to visit the United States.

While the American media are reticent to cover what amounts to a sweeping victory for conservative/free market/anti-Islamist forces, overseas media are giving the victory substantial coverage.

Meanwhile, watch for India to embark on free market reforms that should empower its talented populace to achieve economically the promise that has slumbered for too many years.


And RE your new/old leftover heart-throb:

NY Times Reporter Says Even Hillary's Fans Are 'Flailing' In Attempt to Tout Her Achievements at State Dept.

You know, the political ads almost write themselves:

Letters to Hillary:
Dear Hillary, I'm so sorry I made you a sloppy seconds left-over to Gennifer Flowers and - I NEEEED you - let's have make up sex. xoxox Bill

Dear Hillary, I'm sorry I made you a sloppy seconds left-over to Monica Lewinsky - still NEEEEED you - let's have make up sex - Bill

Dear Hillary, We're sorry we made you a sloppy seconds left-over to Barack Obama - we NEEEED you - let's have make up sex - The Democrat Party

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 18, 2014 01:10 PM
39. A better educated labor pool is one of the major elements of global competitiveness and local quality-of-life.

All that from preschool eh? Couldn't possibly be our horrendous PUBLIC education system with it's crappy graduation rates (worse than horrendous for blacks) our illiterate children who fail to compete with their counterparts from other countries, now could it>

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

WHY are you not demanding LITERACY over Lego's or MATH over 'Mother may I'? And what the */*/* is the point of "pre-school" when the easy liberal answer is to shut up and drug?

Dr. Visser also said doctors did not suggest to parents or day care workers to provide the children with a more structured environment. Instead, they just prescribe this strong medication. "It puts these children and their developing minds at risk, and their health is at risk," she said.

Homosexual male couples DON'T have children - they obtain them - like tchotchkes or art - which is pretty ironic because if the those kids had been aborted per the support and enthusiasm of their preferred political party, they would have been unattainable ...

#sloppy seconds

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 18, 2014 01:26 PM
40. 38. As I remind you of YOUR own words, Mr Pot:"Again, gibberish. You might want to check yourself for a stroke"
Hardly -- you're arguing about the personal flaws of politicians, not on actual, substantive policy. How is that not clear from what I've said?

Likewise, you've successfully derailed this discussion into your laundry list... again. The minimum wage, international politics, gay marriage, and everything else you're talking about have NO relation to whether universal pre-school is a good idea. You're just blabbering on and on and on, thinking that you've made some remarkable points when you are actually just regurgitating all of the things you read on right wingnut websites without providing any sort of critical thought.

Are you sure you aren't brain damaged? That may explain your short attention span.

Do as I say and not as I do or simple minded hypocrisy AGAIN writ large? You decide.
You fundamentally do not understand the concept of "hypocrisy".

By the way: Pragmatism vs. radicalism
And the point of this is? It is irrelevant even to the massive sidetracking you're doing right now.

While the American mainstream media has virtually ignored this embrace of free markets and anti-jihadism, the Obama administration will soon be forced to back-peddle and deal with a man it has barred from receiving a visa to visit the United States.
That's a straight-up lie. The Obama administration didn't bar Modi from receiving a visa to visit the US -- the Bush Administration did. But apparently it seems that conservatives have a problem with Boko Haram because they are terrorists, but the real problem is that they simply aren't murdering or condoning the slaughter just of Muslims alone. If they were simply more like the BJP and just indiscriminately killed Muslims, they'd be the darling of the US conservative movement.

While the American media are reticent to cover what amounts to a sweeping victory for conservative/free market/anti-Islamist forces, overseas media are giving the victory substantial coverage.
I missed the sweeping Fox News coverage of the Indian election, as the exemplar conservative/free market/anti-Islamist network.

Meanwhile, watch for India to embark on free market reforms that should empower its talented populace to achieve economically the promise that has slumbered for too many years.
And? This has nothing to do with ideological bent and everything to do with a corrupt political system headed by the entrenched Gandhi/Nehru political machine. Some kind of neoliberal free market paradise is also not guaranteed to be shepherded in by the BJP -- it is a virulently nationalistic party that got into power by preaching a racist message to rural voters, and is still awash in graft and corruption.

NY Times Reporter Says Even Hillary's Fans Are 'Flailing' In Attempt to Tout Her Achievements at State Dept.
The Secretary of State doesn't really get a lot of big ticket achievements that provide good press, nor should they. They are intended to be managers of executive departments. The QDDR is actually kind of a big deal, but trying to explain a boring administrative process in a short, easily digestible sound bite is not really the point of it.

But hey, I'd be more than happy to hear about how Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State was full of more significant accomplishments.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 03:13 PM
41. @39. All that from preschool eh? Couldn't possibly be our horrendous PUBLIC education system with it's crappy graduation rates (worse than horrendous for blacks) our illiterate children who fail to compete with their counterparts from other countries, now could it>
It's a common refrain from conservatives that the public education system is "horrible", yet it doesn't actually pan out with survey data of those involved. Parents typically grade their own children's schools as much higher than their opinions of the education system as a whole, even if their schools are lower than average according to metrics from testing. Similarly, US students aren't really below average, and if there are differences, it is more correlated to poverty rates than anything else. (Which, of course, conservatives don't really care anything about.)

There are certainly changes I think should be made to our education system. I have continuously maintained, for example, that a four-year college is a waste for a lot of students, and that trade schools should be expanded as an alternative. Job training and internships should also be a greater component of high school and college. Trying to appeal to student needs instead of forcing them through a one-size-fits-all system would do a lot of good.

But hey... why should you think for yourself about all of this when your corporate masters tell you what to believe? Your position is just rehashing tired points fed to you by conservative talking heads, not actual, informed opinions based on... well... anything.

WHY are you not demanding LITERACY over Lego's or MATH over 'Mother may I'?
I'm at a loss as to what exactly you're talking about here. Is this still pre-school we're discussing?

And what the */*/* is the point of "pre-school" when the easy liberal answer is to shut up and drug?
First of all, I'm pretty fascinated that "shut up and drug" is a "liberal answer" for preschool, since nothing in what you've indicated here substantiates that.

Second, isn't it actually that universal pre-school can AVOID this "shut up and drug" approach? If you're essentially stating that being in a low income family is related to being on Ritalin or Adderall, and this is also associated with not being able to afford quality pre-school, doesn't it stand to reason that universal pre-school would REDUCE the use of drugs in favor of a healthy, structured environment?

Homosexual male couples DON'T have children - they obtain them - like tchotchkes or art
I'll pass along to the infertile couples that I know -- I'm sure they'll be fascinated that you believe they "obtain" children like art. Never mind, though, that this is completely irrelevant to the debate over pre-school.

which is pretty ironic because if the those kids had been aborted per the support and enthusiasm of their preferred political party, they would have been unattainable ...
You're not even making any sense. Providing a choice for women to do what the choose with their own bodies is not "support and enthusiasm", it is respect for individual rights. Also, abortion has literally nothing to do with gay marriage or a debate about preschool.

Are you really sure you don't have brain damage? It may explain this obsessive-compulsive focus on abortion and gay marriage, even if neither is relevant here.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 03:26 PM
42. Are you sure you aren't brain damaged? That may explain your short attention span.

Invective - thanks for playing.

I missed the sweeping Fox News coverage of the Indian election, as the exemplar conservative/free market/anti-Islamist network.

Just because Comedy Central/Saturday Night Live/MSNBC didn't cover it, doesn't mean it didn't happen or is unimportant. THAT you didn't know is what is.

They are intended to be managers of executive departments.

LOL Ha ha ha - does the Hillary know that?

I'd be more than happy to hear about how Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State was full of more significant accomplishments

Nice try - is she pretending she's running for sloppy seconds? NO! However she built a coalition through "transformational diplomacy" with a result of building and sustaining democratic states across the world. She did NOT hand a plastic clown button inaccurately translated that led a dictator to invade it's neighbor with the goal of taking it over and rebuilding the Soviet Union.

But hey... why should you think for yourself about all of this when your corporate masters tell you what to believe?

LOL! I guess if I had to have a "master" (Hello Harry Reid - how's your dementia today? Getting good meds from your awesome Congressional non-Obamacare?) it would be preferable to have one with real world corporate experience than one rooted in COMEDY central.

I'm at a loss as to what exactly you're talking about here. Is this still pre-school we're discussing?

What do you think they do in day care masquerading as pre-school? Teach algebra? No. They have stories read to them, they play, they rest, they snack then play again. I would have thought you would have remembered such a recent experience of your own life.

Second, isn't it actually that universal pre-school can AVOID this "shut up and drug" approach?

No, "universal" or any other pre-school does not address that. Especially not if the teacher does not realize that children learn in different ways and works with them as opposed to doing whatever makes HER life easier. Some kids/people are visual, some are auditory and some do best with movement and manipulation of materials. Further, all that hailed class size reduction that has been forced on schools and tax-payers has not addressed that either - AND that was what it was supposed to address. I can't imagine how we learned with 64 kids in a class but the good sisters saw that we did.

Never mind, though, that this is completely irrelevant to the debate over pre-school.

Then why did you bring it up? (Hello Harry Reid - how's your dementia today?)

Are you really sure you don't have brain damage?

Invective - thanks for playing.

Oh the irony of an ideology that has killing children in its platform wanting to tax poor people to subsidize the education of the ones who escaped ...

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 18, 2014 07:09 PM
43. Re: 21, demo kid: "paper records...are actually good as a management practice across the board." Thanks for the laugh as you defend the indefensible. Quality businesses, such as those who've adopted computer sign-in, want to be able to analyze data. A competent business owner wants to be able to, for instance, report on attendance, run an analysis on percentage of students who arrived between certain times during a quarter, compare patterns across the different preschools they own or any other useful bit of management data. Do you think it'll be easier to do any of those things for the business owner who relies on paper or the owner who has parents sign in via computer?

Also re: 21, "In fact, you provide two examples that aren't even used by the state Early Learning Technical Workgroup as support for their recommendations, which are used in turn by the City to support the program."

My general assertion, which I stand by, is that studies of universal preschool don't show long term benefits. But I'm happy to discuss the examples used by the Early Learning Technical Workgroup (ELTW). The first relates New Jersey's Abbott Preschool Program, which isn't a universal preschool program as such, but is more akin to the Perry preschool program I discussed here and in my blog on nkerr.com. While Abbott covers a lot more kids than Perry, like Perry it's very targeted at the poorest neighborhoods in New Jersey, so the results can't be applied broadly to a program covering kids of all backgrounds that a universal program would fund. Moreover, like Perry, Abbott preschools are funded at higher levels than planned for Seattle and Abbott K-12 is also funded at very high levels as a result of a court ruling, making comparisons even more difficult. That said, the results of the Abbott program aren't all the compelling and the fade-out I've talked about shows up there too. For example, from the Abbott study referred to by the ELTW: "Regardless of pre-K attendance, children scored near the national average on broad reading at the end of second grade." Or from another critique of Abbott: "However, as students advanced in grade, their relative performance gains were lost, such that high school students showed no improvement at all and one expert, the Assistant Commissioner at the New Jersey Department of Education from 2002 to 2007 stated, 'When you get to middle school, eighth grade, high school - forget about it. This has been a huge failure.'" So not only can we not compare Abbott, which was very targeted at the poor (though less so than Perry), but its results have been mixed at best.

As for the other report cited by the ELTW, it summarizes other studies and broadly reaches the same conclusions that I highlighted in my blog posts. For example, the problem of fade-out comes through in the report: "[S]tudies show that the quality of children's child care before they enter school continues to affect their development at least through kindergarten and perhaps through third grade." The report also repeatedly highlights my general point that the poor and disadvantaged benefit most from quality preschool programs, e.g. "High quality early care and education has been shown to benefit children from low-income families in particular, resulting in improved academic and developmental outcomes." "...the effects were largest for disadvantaged groups." "...larger effects of quality of early education over time for children who were initially at greater developmental risk...and children with lower initial cognitive developmental scores."

Re: 36, MikeBoyScout, I'm glad you've gotten over your assertion that the mayor shouldn't be calling the preschool funding in his plan what it is, a subsidy. Regarding education, what we're talking about here is government funding of education, not education more generally. Unless you are arguing that kids learn from the moment that they're born, therefore government should be involved, then you're in agreement with myself and "demo kid" - there's no case for continuous and unlimited government funding of education from the moment a child enters the world until her or she dies.

Re: 37, demo kid and the comment: "(And his statement assumes that gay couples don't have children, which is patently false as well.)" My comment did nothing of the sort. What I wrote, in illustrating the absurdity of the proposed policy was, a potential yard sign for supporters of the mayor: "I support higher taxes on childless straight and gay couples to help fund preschool for the 1 percent!" Literate people will quite clearly understand that this statement refers to childless straight couples and childless gay couples. If I'd wanted to imply what demo kid mistakenly interpreted, I'd have written "...taxes on childless straight couples, and gay couples." My mistake for assuming a certain degree of literacy on this blog. I quite deliberately chose my words to highlight the disparate impact of this policy on gay couples, who are considerably more likely to be childless and benefit less from this policy. To be clear, I have no issue with government funding of K-12 education, although I might quibble with the way its spent and the amount spent. I'm only referring here to proposed spending on preschool.


Also re: 37, "You cannot state that [preschool] is useless in one sentence, and then say there is a case for supporting it in another."

I'd agree, if that's what I was saying, but it's not. What I'm saying is that the available evidence suggests that universal preschool (i.e. funding for all) has essentially no impact on a child's ongoing performance in the school system. On the other hand, if you focus your investment on poor, underprivileged and vulnerable preschool age children, studies suggest that certain well designed programs can have a very positive impact on educational outcomes. Personally, I don't see any conflict with those statements.


This leads to my final comment or challenge. I've yet to see any supporter of the mayor's policy defend subsidizing preschool for the children of the 1 percent, or even those earning over say $150,000. Is it because it's indefensible? I think so. For the sake of argument, let's assume, despite all the evidence I've discussed, that there is a benefit from having parents choose to send their kids to a preschool program similar to the one proposed by the mayor. The only way to justify such a policy would be to argue that there are preschoolers of the 1 percent that are not attending preschool and in order to get them enrolled, we need to offer subsidies. Can anyone with a straight face seriously contend that if we offer $1,100 per child of the 1% (as proposed by the mayor), these extremely wealthy parents who aren't currently sending their kids to preschool will suddenly line-up outside an early learning center? And given that a large number of the 1 percent are already enrolling their kids in preschool, why on earth would we want to raise taxes on everyone in order to give $1,100 to each of their kids?

Posted by: Nicholas Kerr on May 18, 2014 07:56 PM
44. @43: Thanks for the laugh as you defend the indefensible. ... Do you think it'll be easier to do any of those things for the business owner who relies on paper or the owner who has parents sign in via computer?
That's not the point of paper copies. If you have an emergency, data loss, or a power outage, it's a LOT easier to deal with hardcopies as a backup to a computer system.

My general assertion, which I stand by, is that studies of universal preschool don't show long term benefits.
Which is shown to be false by the report, and you yourself contradict that statement in what you've said here.

But I'm happy to discuss the examples used by the Early Learning Technical Workgroup (ELTW).
And you proceed to say that "the poor and disadvantaged benefit most from quality preschool programs", and you specifically indicate that it could be where government provides support. Therefore, your argument is not necessarily about the benefits of "universal" pre-school, but just the distribution of the subsidies and benefits.

Likewise, one of the findings in these studies is ALSO that the benefits to lower-income children are greatest when pre-school is integrated. Providing for subsidies for lower-income families is one thing, but the ability to draw in a broad cross-section of socioeconomic groups into daycare is where you can get much more benefit, and potentially, a much more effective program.

Unless you are arguing that kids learn from the moment that they're born, therefore government should be involved, then you're in agreement with myself and "demo kid" - there's no case for continuous and unlimited government funding of education from the moment a child enters the world until her or she dies.
That's not exactly what I said. My comment was that it makes no sense to provide significant government support for education in cases where there is no public good. (I will also concede the point that education should be low-cost, but not no-cost, if that matters.) However, I do think that "continuous" funding for education is not a bad thing, especially with respect for retraining, etc. Education shouldn't be rewarded with a subsidy if it will never be used, but there are plenty of uses for education that can benefit society.

My comment did nothing of the sort. ... Literate people will quite clearly understand that this statement refers to childless straight couples and childless gay couples. If I'd wanted to imply what demo kid mistakenly interpreted, I'd have written "...taxes on childless straight couples, and gay couples." My mistake for assuming a certain degree of literacy on this blog.
If you wanted to talk about impacts solely on childless couples, why include "straight" or "gay" in there? Given that your sentence was ambiguous ("childless straight"/"gay" versus "childless straight"/"childless gay"), there had to be a reason for including a couple's sexual preferences. Otherwise, it's a pointless distinction and an error on your part. Any literate person would be able to tell you that.

I quite deliberately chose my words to highlight the disparate impact of this policy on gay couples, who are considerably more likely to be childless and benefit less from this policy.
Gay and lesbian couples choose to have or not have children, just as straight couples do (both fertile and infertile). It's a personal choice, and like many personal choices, it will change the costs and benefits to your household.

But the whole notion of talking about disproportionate costs to the childless, though, is ignoring that there are already significant subsidies granted to parents with children, ranging from public funding of education to tax credits specifically for children. A very minor property tax change doesn't really tip the balance that much further.

I'd agree, if that's what I was saying, but it's not. What I'm saying is that the available evidence suggests that universal preschool (i.e. funding for all) has essentially no impact on a child's ongoing performance in the school system. On the other hand, if you focus your investment on poor, underprivileged and vulnerable preschool age children, studies suggest that certain well designed programs can have a very positive impact on educational outcomes. Personally, I don't see any conflict with those statements.
You're stating that preschool for everyone has no impact, but then preschool just for lower-income children has a very positive impact? Those statements directly conflict, unless you're arguing that universal preschool wouldn't benefit lower-income children, or that it would harm children in higher-income families and you're just taking an average.

I've yet to see any supporter of the mayor's policy defend subsidizing preschool for the children of the 1 percent, or even those earning over say $150,000. Is it because it's indefensible? I think so.
Again, the point is not so much to get middle- and upper-class children into preschool when they would be going anyway. The point is to provide an integrated preschool program that isn't segregated by income groups. Research has noted that benefits to lower-income children are higher when they are in a mixed group.

If the benefits of a program for lower-income children are higher when there is a mix of income groups, then why not provide a benefit for participation? If, as you say, middle- and upper-income children will be going to preschool anyway and would not be getting a major benefit from it, you're subsidizing middle- and upper-income families to help in providing more benefits to lower-income children.

Posted by: demo kid on May 18, 2014 09:40 PM
45. I really appreciate your help, it is very useful for me,you will get good grades!

Posted by: oakley m frame sunglasses on May 19, 2014 01:42 AM
46. @42: Invective - thanks for playing.
It's an honest question, as Rove might say. You exhibit many of the symptoms.

Just because Comedy Central/Saturday Night Live/MSNBC didn't cover it, doesn't mean it didn't happen or is unimportant. THAT you didn't know is what is.
The Economist had reasonable coverage. I didn't read about it exhaustively, but well enough to know what was going on and why Modi is really not anyone to cheer about.

Still, you are claiming that the American media -- INCLUDING the pro-free market, anti-Islam media -- has completely ignored the election. What's your point? Are you trying to prove general non-partisan ignorance in America? That's not really a disputed fact here.

LOL Ha ha ha - does the Hillary know that?
You have evidence that she doesn't?

Nice try - is she pretending she's running for sloppy seconds? NO! However she built a coalition through "transformational diplomacy" with a result of building and sustaining democratic states across the world.
So... exactly the same as Clinton. Care to point towards some individual accomplishments? I'm sure that your reading of her Wikipedia entry might provide a few that might lionize her.

She did NOT hand a plastic clown button inaccurately translated that led a dictator to invade it's neighbor with the goal of taking it over and rebuilding the Soviet Union.
No, she just decided to sit on her hands when THAT SAME DICTATOR invaded its neighbor with the goal of taking it over and rebuilding the Soviet Union. And how precisely does a big red button lead Russia to annex Crimea? That makes zero sense.

LOL! I guess if I had to have a "master" (Hello Harry Reid - how's your dementia today? Getting good meds from your awesome Congressional non-Obamacare?) it would be preferable to have one with real world corporate experience than one rooted in COMEDY central.
So you admit that you lack critical thinking skills? Great! Now we're getting somewhere.

And it's that kind of wandering mind (Harry Reid? WTF?) that leads me to believe that you have brain damage.

What do you think they do in day care masquerading as pre-school? Teach algebra? No. They have stories read to them, they play, they rest, they snack then play again. I would have thought you would have remembered such a recent experience of your own life.
Which is why state requirements and general subsidies are a good step towards ensuring that pre-school actually makes a difference for lower-income children, as opposed to being glorified daycare. Providing a structured environment does give benefits to children, especially lower-income children, as shown in research.

No, "universal" or any other pre-school does not address that. Especially not if the teacher does not realize that children learn in different ways and works with them as opposed to doing whatever makes HER life easier.
Your statement doesn't even make sense. Teachers do not dose their students with Ritalin or Adderall.

Some kids/people are visual, some are auditory and some do best with movement and manipulation of materials. Further, all that hailed class size reduction that has been forced on schools and tax-payers has not addressed that either - AND that was what it was supposed to address.
Now you're completely bouncing around. Class-size reduction has nothing to do with a study that suggests that kids are being dosed with ADHD drugs, nor was drug use by children the primary reason for the initiative. However, a well-structured environment for pre-school can reduce some of the issues that would lead to behavioral problems.

I can't imagine how we learned with 64 kids in a class but the good sisters saw that we did.
Apparently, they never taught you how to write a coherent argument, basic reading comprehension, or even remedial civics. Therefore, I don't quite know if you would want to laud those massive class sizes.

Likewise, from my time in a Catholic school, very few of the teachers are very interested in whether "children learn in different ways" or "work with them" to see what fits their style.

Then why did you bring it up? (Hello Harry Reid - how's your dementia today?)
You were the one that started in on the completely random topics. Must be the brain damage making you forget (and making you keep confusing me with a senator from Nevada).

Oh the irony of an ideology that has killing children in its platform wanting to tax poor people to subsidize the education of the ones who escaped ...
That sentence doesn't even make sense. You're bringing in completely irrelevant issues. Support of universal pre-school for children is not tied to one's position on abortion, no matter how much you really wish that to be the case.

Posted by: demo kid on May 19, 2014 11:45 AM
47. This leads to my final comment or challenge. I've yet to see any supporter of the mayor's policy defend subsidizing preschool for the children of the 1 percent, or even those earning over say $150,000. Is it because it's indefensible?

No, because, as stated up-thread, it's irrelevant. If a household is physically located within a public school district, then any or all of the children in that household are eligible for a free public education in that district. It matters not one whit if the household is in the top 1% of income earners for our country, the bottom 1%, or anywhere in-between. If the household is in the top 1%, then, statistically speaking, any child going to public school in that district represents a tax subsidy going from the lower-income households in the state or city to the 1%, but that's a necessary result of universal public education. Why adding preschool to the range of public education would change this is something you haven't answered.

But hey, I'm game: this childless, unmarried citizen will, yet again, vote to increase his own taxes to spend more public money on education; this time it will be to provide pre-school education to all children, without regard the the financial status of any child's household. Could you please let me know where I can get my yard sign?

Posted by: tensor on May 19, 2014 11:47 AM
48. Notice the comment section is 90% left-wing loons.

Posted by: SmoledMan on May 19, 2014 12:36 PM
49. "This free day care is the natural and predictable conclusion to the $15 minimum wage. I'm sure you loud lefty's can puzzle it out."

Yes, in each case, we want the working poor, and their children, to have good educational opportunities. I've worked my way through school whilst working at $6/hour, and later at $12/hour; guess which was a heck of a lot easier?

"Homosexual male couples DON'T have children - they obtain them - like tchotchkes or art."

Not all conservatives are cruel, sneering bigots; but all cruel, sneering bigots are conservatives. Nice set of "family values" you're showing there -- labeling a child as equivalent to a thing because you don't like her stable, married, two-parent home. (And how do you know, in any randomly-chosen gay marriage, that a child is *not* the biological child of one of the parents?)

Posted by: tensor on May 19, 2014 02:58 PM
50. .
@43 Nicholas Kerr on May 18, 2014 07:56 PM,

As someone who has no children going into pre-school I support the beginning of universal pre-school education funded by the community (tax payers) for all students regardless of the income of their household. If this proposal take us one step further than where we are now, then despite the proposals imperfect nature I won't oppose the good that the implementation of the proposal brings.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 19, 2014 04:11 PM
51. @49 tensor on May 19, 2014 02:58 PM,

I'm sure we'll hear very shortly from our poster, Nicholas Kerr, who is very concerned about "gay couples" regarding the vile comment aimed at "gay couples" of Rags @39 on May 18, 2014 01:26 PM

Homosexual male couples DON'T have children - they obtain them - like tchotchkes or art - Posted by Rags on May 18, 2014 01:26 PM

Strangely Nicholas Kerr didn't address Rags' homophobic comment up @43. I'm sure there's a very valid reason.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 19, 2014 06:59 PM
52. Dear Mikey BS - read the note to demokid that follows. Also, I do believe you must have missed it several months ago when I reiterated that I will not be cowed into playing your 'political correctness' game. I will say what I think.

And check your biology: MALES, whether hetero or homo, do not HAVE children - they do not have the biological equipment nor capability to do so. Therefore, absent a wife or stupid woman willing to procreate without the benefit of marriage, they must OBTAIN them. Further, by whining otherwise, you wage an ugly insulting war on the women who HAVE carried a child/children in her womb for 9 months and labored to deliver that child. Why do you want to diminish women in general and mothers in particular?

* * *

Yep, that's pretty much par for the course for conservatives. You like freedom, choice, and opportunity, but just for yourselves -- everyone else should be forced into servitude. How pathetic. - Posted by demo kid at May 17, 2014 03:51 PM

I don't even know half the gibberish you're trying to spew in that sentence ...
Again, gibberish. You might want to check yourself for a stroke, or at least for a coherent argument...
It seems like everything you do is out of spite, Rags. You must be really fun at parties. (When you don't shoot the guests, of course.)
- - Posted by demo kid at May 17, 2014 04:26 PM

Are you sure you aren't brain damaged? That may explain your short attention span. - Posted by demo kid at May 18, 2014 03:13 PM

But hey... why should you think for yourself about all of this when your corporate masters tell you what to believe?

Are you really sure you don't have brain damage? It may explain this obsessive-compulsive focus on abortion and gay marriage, even if neither is relevant here.
- Posted by demo kid at May 18, 2014 03:26 PM

You're less than a useless child throwing a temper tantrum... - Posted by demo kid at May 18, 2014 01:20 AM

demokid has learned the lessons of his master and hero well, eh kid?

Recognize them? I do. We ALL do.

...the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

...The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. -- P.126-129...The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. -- P.126-129

The problem you (and your fellow loud lefty's) have is I cannot be cowed, I am not afraid and what you (or anyone) do or do not think of or about me is simply not my problem. It's yours. YOU can assign what you hope are my reactions, but they exist only in your head. And that is what you loudest lefty's fear - someone who is certain and steady in their beliefs. That is why Bruce gets simply apoplectic with his accusation that I "see everything in black and white". I do. I absolutely do. I remember a 'conversation' a while back on this blog when one could almost see the spittle in the scream: YOU CAN"T BE THAT CERTAIN". Well yes, I can. I am. I'll give you a hint over which tensor and others will gnash their teeth - FAITH. It takes courage to have it, it takes courage to live it. Hmmm, what does that say about those that don't?

Really, I truly hope you Seattle lefty's get every thing and exactly what you want. In so many ways, you already have. Do you recognize that? We do, with ... glee.

However, I'm amused that you are counting down for something that does not matter, and simply may not come to pass. - Posted by demo kid at May 17, 2014 04:33 PM

And you intimate that I'm dumb? The countdown is the eternity until President Incompetent is OUT of office --- and simply may not come to pass unless you think (hope) he'll ignore the Constitution (well more than he already has), declare martial law, suspend rights and crown himself 'Supreme Commander for Life'. For someone who likes to parade and preen his superior intellect, I'm a bit surprised you admit you couldn't figure THAT out. Hmmm - now what does that tell us?

977 days


Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 19, 2014 08:29 PM
53. Let me start by saying that immigrants are the backbone of the USA and I am for some reasonable amnesty. But that said, with the blatant release of known alien criminals we can only hope that a disproportionate number of their future victims are Obamabots and others from the left.

Only idiots would not at least screen out blatant criminals and other egregious candidates for entry in to the USA. But that is the definition of an Obamabot; a blindly allegiant idiot.

Posted by: Mike on May 19, 2014 10:16 PM
54. "...MALES, whether hetero or homo, do not HAVE children - they do not have the biological equipment nor capability to do so. Therefore, absent a wife or stupid woman willing to procreate without the benefit of marriage,"

Um, why do you assume every man who today identifies as gay has always and forever done so? What about the men who were raised to be heterosexual men, who married and procreated as they were told "real" men do, and then later discovered "the love that date not speak its name"? Wouldn't such men now have biological children for their now-gay marriages? What of the women raised as straight, who married men, and bore children as they were so raised to do? Would they not now supply children to their own lesbian marriages?

Again I ask of you: how do you look at any random gay married couple, and know for sure a child of that couple is not the biological descendent of one or the other?

Posted by: tensor on May 20, 2014 12:02 AM
55. @52. And check your biology: MALES, whether hetero or homo, do not HAVE children - they do not have the biological equipment nor capability to do so. Therefore, absent a wife or stupid woman willing to procreate without the benefit of marriage, they must OBTAIN them.
Heterosexual couples that are infertile would be happy to know you believe that they "obtain" their children, or maybe have a "stupid woman" serve as a surrogate, since many do not have the biological equipment or capability to bear children.

Further, by whining otherwise, you wage an ugly insulting war on the women who HAVE carried a child/children in her womb for 9 months and labored to deliver that child. Why do you want to diminish women in general and mothers in particular?
What ugly disgusting war? If anything, it is you that seeks to denigrate loving parents that want to provide for their children, not us.

Recognize them? I do. We ALL do.
As something that you routinely indulge in yourself, as anyone that reads your comments knows.

The problem you (and your fellow loud lefty's) have is I cannot be cowed, I am not afraid and what you (or anyone) do or do not think of or about me is simply not my problem.
What I think of you is actually... not quite that relevant. You may have hurt feelings, but it really doesn't matter. I don't know you, and while I doubt that we'd really get along (not because of your politics, just because of your personality), I just don't care.

However, I do respect well-reasoned, respectful opinions. Yours are neither. Your comments dwell on a pitiful, pathetic sense of victimization and serve to lash out randomly at your opponents instead of providing reasonable, rational solutions to... well... anything. You also talk about freedom and liberty when you actually respect neither one, and loop through a grand cycle of cognitive dissonance to try to rationalize the world around you.

In fact, if anything I just think that you're lazy.

Not because you're a conservative, mind you, or because you're religious, but simply that you parrot back what has been said to you, and you believe that somehow it makes you a wise person to regurgitate facts without analysis. I respected pudge when he posted here because he could make a rational, independent argument and stick to it. You simply vomit back what you read online hoping that something makes sense. You're just obsessed with defeating your political opponents at any cost, even if your mouth writes checks that your ass can't cash.

YOU can assign what you hope are my reactions, but they exist only in your head. And that is what you loudest lefty's fear - someone who is certain and steady in their beliefs.
Again, I don't care. I don't know you, and aside from the potential for you to wave guns around and hurt someone, I don't fear you.

That is why Bruce gets simply apoplectic with his accusation that I "see everything in black and white". I do. I absolutely do.
You're free to do what you like -- it's just pretty interesting to see how someone that claims to see everything in "black and white" starts to rationalize when the black and the white conflict with everything else. (The death penalty is a great case in point for conservative Catholics.)

I remember a 'conversation' a while back on this blog when one could almost see the spittle in the scream: YOU CAN"T BE THAT CERTAIN". Well yes, I can. I am.
That's great -- but that's not how the real world works. Uncertainty about many things exist.

I'll give you a hint over which tensor and others will gnash their teeth - FAITH. It takes courage to have it, it takes courage to live it. Hmmm, what does that say about those that don't?
Why does it take courage to have it and live it? In fact, I think that it takes courage to look at evidence, form your own opinions, test those opinions, and take action even when it doesn't align with what has been told to you and what you believe. I don't think, for example, that young Earth creationists are "brave" because they distort scientific evidence to meet their own needs... I just think that they do not follow evidence to its conclusion, and are too cowardly to entertain alternatives to deeply-held beliefs.

And you intimate that I'm dumb?
I don't just intimate. I clearly state it, given the evidence I have.

The countdown is the eternity until President Incompetent is OUT of office --- and simply may not come to pass unless you think (hope) he'll ignore the Constitution (well more than he already has), declare martial law, suspend rights and crown himself 'Supreme Commander for Life'.
No rational person believes that a president would "crown himself". There is no imaginable cause to do such a thing, despite what you've been told by delusional far right wingnuts.

For someone who likes to parade and preen his superior intellect, I'm a bit surprised you admit you couldn't figure THAT out. Hmmm - now what does that tell us?
That I don't believe in stupid conspiracy theories that don't make sense?

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2014 12:24 AM
56. Hey nice going Obamabots tensor, Obama kid, MikeBS,

Single payer government run healthcare descending in to rationing and failure.

But this was the moment that the oceans were going to recede and the most transparent and benevolent administration evah was going to solve all ills.

And why after the horrors of the Patriot Act from the troglodyte chimp Bush that you cried so loudly about is the NSA now removing your freedom and anonymity at an even greater pace?

I guess we need to wait for a soaring speech and a stern warning to the VA and the NSA just like warnings Obama gave to Iran and Syria that have been so effective in stopping their nuke programs.

Posted by: Mike on May 20, 2014 01:35 AM
57. "I'll give you a hint over which tensor and others will gnash their teeth - FAITH. It takes courage to have it, it takes courage to live it. Hmmm, what does that say about those that don't?"

Demo kid already responded eloquently on this point, but I'd like to tie my response even more firmly to this topic. You see, I hail from a family of educators, so I had faith this pre-school would be a good civic investment. Thanks to Mr. Kerr's questioning of my belief, and his supplying of evidence in favor of the proposal, I now have greater confidence in the Mayor's plan. See how that works? :-)

Posted by: tensor on May 20, 2014 12:56 PM
58. .
Rags,
It must be inspiring to you as a person of courageous "FAITH" that in this week alone courts in OR, UT and now PA have all thrown out the unchristian treatment of denying homosexual couples marriage equality in favor of what we in WA accomplished 2 years ago through the will of (mostly) Christian people at the ballot box.

Keep the "FAITH" Rags! 18 down, 32 to go!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2014 01:36 PM
59. http://www.ukboathire.com/shoes/nike-free-5.0-v4.html nike free 5.0 v4

Posted by: nike free 5.o on May 20, 2014 02:48 PM
60. RE MikeyBS @ 58 "It must be inspiring to you as a person" who claims to love the freedom of his country and DEMANDS everyone (legal or illegal) be given a vote (or several), to have THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IN THOSE STATES OVERTURNED by the dictatorial fiat of cowardly ideological judges.

See how that works? You hypocrisy writ large!

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 20, 2014 07:14 PM
61. "the dictatorial fiat of cowardly ideological judges"

Um, the dictatorial, cowardly ideological judge in Pennsylvania was nominated by Rick Santorum.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on May 20, 2014 07:58 PM
62. If anything, it is you that seeks to denigrate loving parents that want to provide for their children, not us.

I never once said or even intimated homosexuals could be loving parents nor that they want to provide for the children the obtain: LEARN TO READ without your built in bias.

Your comments dwell on a pitiful, pathetic sense of victimization

I've never been a victim. I have never whined about ... whatever you imagine. I am pissed off and furious that you dumb-asses inflicted that incompetent on us and that he then inflicted Obamacare on this country. I am pissed off and furious. But fury is not a synonym for victimhood. I don't want pity for what you inflicted on this country - I WANT IT GONE.

In fact, if anything I just think that you're lazy.

From the guy who whines he doesn't use invective, wants informational welfare then has a tantrum when it's provided by a source he doesn't approve. Tell me, all these stOries, articles editorials and opinion pieces i reference, DO YOU GET THEIR POINT OF VIEW *ANYWHERE* in what you read or watch? If you can't appreciate learning WHY your opponent believes what they do, you have laready lost. Further, why would I referenCe what I read at Salon, Daily Beast, Huffpo or at Comedy Central? YOU already have it imprinted and ready to regurgitate.

aside from the potential for you to wave guns around and hurt someone,

Does your Obamacare provide help for your Tourette's?

(The death penalty is a great case in point for conservative Catholics.)

Picking and choosing Catholic doctrine that suits your narrative, are you? The death penalty is too easy. Someone commits and is convicted of a heinous crime? Isolate them from civil society. Send their ass to hard labor in the coldest point in Alaska. THAT would be just punishment. Make them raise, grow and harvest their own food. Make them build a bed if they want to sleep on one. Take away TV, computers, weight lifting. Let the weight they lift be on the land they have to clear to farm for their own sustenance. Let them build a business with their labor and let the profits of their labor go to their victims and the municipalities that incurred the cost to convict them and the cost to keep them healthy enough to continue to labor until they die a natural death of very old age.

Is that clear enough for you?

That I don't believe in stupid conspiracy theories that don't make sense?

Oh? "and simply may not come to pass "

And what should we have imagined you meant by that IF indeed you knew it was a countdown until the day we're rid finally of the incompetent?


On another note, I read an article today... oh HORRORS! It was on Town hall -QUICK! LOUD LEFTY'S, AVERT YOUR EYES!!! ... Seattle Set To Destroy Economy With Highest Minimum Wage Increase In The World

... When this law goes into effect, many businesses will lay off employees, find ways to automate jobs or force employees to work harder. Fast-food digital kiosks are already prevalent in Europe, where they were implemented in order to replace employees due to increasingly oppressive taxes and regulations. The kiosks are beginning to show up in the U.S., and can be expected to drastically increase in Seattle.

Similarly, in the past when there have been minimum wage hikes, grocery stores adapted by laying off cashiers and setting up self-service checkout lanes. Another adverse effect will be less difference in pay between employees, regardless of their skills or experience. The left admits that restaurants will be hit the hardest. Highly dependent upon unskilled workers, they will end up passing much of the increase onto consumers.

Even the liberal magazine Slate has acknowledged the drastic hike will have negative ramifications. "Any plan that makes hiring a worker more expensive than in France should be cause for concern," wrote contributor Jordan Weissman.

As we've seen in the past when the government makes things too expensive for business, companies will relocate to the suburbs or flee the state. Services Group of America moved from Seattle to Scottsdale, Ariz., in 2006 due to high taxes. Services Group of America is ranked by Forbes Magazine as one of the largest privately-held corporations in the nation, with approximately $3 billion in annual revenues. After its CEO unexpectedly died in a helicopter accident in 2010, it was widely thought that the company would not have survived had it still been located in Seattle.

Boeing moved its headquarters out of the state in 2001 to Chicago. Microsoft's headquarters are located across the water in Redmond, but there have been rumors lately that it may be leaving the state due to the mediocre business climate. Seattle is home to four Fortune 500 companies; Amazon, Starbucks, Nordstrom and freight forwarder Expeditors International of Washington. Which one will leave next?
Washington state already has the highest minimum wage in the nation, at $9.32/hr. This increase would make the minimum wage substantially higher than in socialist countries. Even socialist Switzerland just rejected an increase equivalent to $17.60/hr.

... Proponents claim there weren't adverse results after nearby Seattle airport city of SeaTac raised the minimum wage for some to $15 this year, affecting service employees of larger hotels and transportation employees. However, that raise only affected 1,700 employees and has barely been in effect since the beginning of the year. A judge temporarily blocked implementation at the airport.

As a result of the SeaTac hike, the Clarion Hotel closed its full-service restaurant there, laying off 15 people. General manager Perry Wall said the increase is going to hurt unskilled workers - the poor - the most. He told the Seattle Times, "I just think unskilled workers are going to have a harder time finding jobs. You're going to have people from as far away as Bellevue or Tacoma wanting these jobs, and they're going to come with skills and experience. For $15 an hour, they'll go that extra distance."

Ultimately, increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr will force the lowest skilled workers onto government assistance. Once people are dependent upon government, they will continue voting for the wasteful policies they benefit from, as is taking place in cities like Chicago, Detroit and Stockton.

Seattle has stagnated under years of one-party rule by the Democrats. Its population increased between 1990 and 2012 from 515,761 to only 634,535. In contrast, Phoenix, which is thriving with a more pro-business climate, saw its population boom during that same period from 983,015 to 1,488,750, about a 50 percent increase.

Seattle has the eighth worst traffic congestion among large U.S. cities, even though it is only the 22nd largest city, and the price of housing is considered substantially high in contrast with the median income in the area. Seattle is considered one of the most expensive cities in the nation for cost of living. Working in a fast food restaurant should be a stepping stone to management, owning your own restaurant, or some other venture. An inflated salary merely discourages people from trying to do better and getting ahead.

... The members of the city council are paid $120,000 annually. It is telling that they don't reduce their own salaries to $30,000, the equivalent of $15/hr, to show they really care about reducing income inequality.

Or they can pass a resolution mandating reducing retail, housing, utility and taxation costs across the board in Seattle.


Seattle has stagnated under years of one-party rule by the Democrats. Its population increased between 1990 and 2012 from 515,761 to only 634,535. In contrast, Phoenix, which is thriving with a more pro-business climate, saw its population boom during that same period from 983,015 to 1,488,750, about a 50 percent increase.

Shhh, don't tell tensor. He thinks everything is hunky dory unicorns and rainbows wonderful in the city with the bogged Big Bertha bore boondoggle.


Oh how I sincerely hope loud lefty's AGAIN get everything and all they want!

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 20, 2014 08:02 PM
63. "Um, the dictatorial, cowardly ideological judge in Pennsylvania was nominated by Rick Santorum."

Heh, and appointed by George Bush.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on May 20, 2014 08:16 PM
64. Um, the dictatorial, cowardly ideological judge in Pennsylvania was nominated by Rick Santorum.

So? Souter was nominated by George H. W. Bush. And hasn't HE been so dependably ... LEFT.

Further, your half-straw dog (nice try) does not negate the FACT they they have indeed thwarted and ignored the will of the people who specifically stated their will with their votes. Perhaps you should address that ... and how you didn't complain and gnash your teeth when the Supreme Court struck down the overall political donation cap [imagining Harry Reid spittle: KOCH BROTHERS!!] ... or how you didn't gloat when Roberts voted FOR Obamacare. Or would discussing those bare your hypocrisy?

Oh how I sincerely hope loud lefty's AGAIN get everything and all they want!

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 20, 2014 08:18 PM
65. "thwarted and ignored the will of the people who specifically stated their will with their votes"

Your so-called will of the people was found to be unconstitutional by a dictatorial, cowardly ideological Republican judge who was nominated by Senator Santorum and appointed by President Bush.

"So?"

So sad. You lose again. Speaking of which, did you notice that the Republican establishment shot down your tea-bircher candidates today? It looks like they've had their fill of you. About time.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on May 20, 2014 08:39 PM
66. "Its population increased between 1990 and 2012 from 515,761 to only 634,535. In contrast, Phoenix, which is thriving with a more pro-business climate, saw its population boom during that same period from 983,015 to 1,488,750, about a 50 percent increase."

Horse-pucky. Seattle is 84 square miles of thriving, bustling, international-class city. Phoenix is 517 square miles of over-annexation of desert, unmanaged growth, and the resultant infrastructure nightmares. But if you love Phoenix so damned much more than Seattle, please feel free to move there.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on May 20, 2014 09:04 PM
67. Not sure that Phoenix is that great of a comparison with Seattle - crime is probably at least as high there with the higher % of illegal Hispanics/drug cartels. Try comparing Seattle to Oklahoma City (sorry, former Sonics fans), which will show more favorably for OKC. Tourism is better in Seattle, but inner city filth (crime) is higher in Seattle.

PJ O'Rourke sounded off about a real issue - college campuses...

P.J. O'Rourke says he knows why college campuses stifle free speech -- such as Rutgers University, some of whose faculty and students got former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to back out of delivering a commencement speech.

"If you're looking for the fundamental problem, it would be the old coots my age, victims of the '60s, the real loser element,''

"Some of us came to our senses at least partially, but the real losers wound up in academia and the long march through academia, and all this '60s gibberish lives on on our campuses.

"By now, these people are in their 60s, in their 50s, and they're in powerful positions . . . Americans, your people are being taught by lunatics, especially in the softer subjects like history of film and stuff,'' he said Tuesday."

This is the background behind the lunatic left who often infests SP to attack those who have a different viewpoint from their's.

It was noted that Howard "the scream" Dean, failed POTUS candidate stated that "Republicans are un-American and should be shipped off to Russia" before a crowd of 40 or so in a public forum in Denver last week. Dean is an example of an old coot/lunatic who spews his insults and lies - sounds a lot like a number of leftists who post here - who are were mentored by lunatics and like to emulate them.

Posted by: KDS on May 20, 2014 09:49 PM
68. @67: This is the background behind the lunatic left who often infests SP to attack those who have a different viewpoint from their's.
In other words, you cannot seem to refute the things that your ideological opponents bring up, so you want them to shut up because they hurt your feelings. Gotcha.

It was noted that Howard "the scream" Dean, failed POTUS candidate stated that "Republicans are un-American and should be shipped off to Russia" before a crowd of 40 or so in a public forum in Denver last week. Dean is an example of an old coot/lunatic who spews his insults and lies - sounds a lot like a number of leftists who post here - who are were mentored by lunatics and like to emulate them.
Aside from the fact that he never said that they should be "shipped" anywhere... what do I care? He is not a candidate or a politician at this point.

However, the process of taking voting rights away from people and celebrating it as a "victory" for "democracy" is pretty much the tactics used in places like Russia. Why not simply call it for what it is? Conservatives would prefer to live in an oligarchy and be ruled over by a dictator... as long as that dictator is white, religious, and bigoted against gays and lesbians.

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2014 11:27 PM
69. @60: "It must be inspiring to you as a person" who claims to love the freedom of his country and DEMANDS everyone (legal or illegal) be given a vote (or several), to have THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IN THOSE STATES OVERTURNED by the dictatorial fiat of cowardly ideological judges.
I don't really think you understand how our government works. District courts, appeals courts, and supreme courts are *specifically* charged with overturning the will of the voters. They are *precisely* in place to be dictators of the law, and to subvert the electorate and the will of the people. Even when judges are elected, they do not have a responsibility to represent the majority of voters, and if they did, they wouldn't be doing their job.

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2014 11:29 PM
70. @60: "It must be inspiring to you as a person" who claims to love the freedom of his country and DEMANDS everyone (legal or illegal) be given a vote (or several), to have THE WILL OF THE VOTERS IN THOSE STATES OVERTURNED by the dictatorial fiat of cowardly ideological judges.
I don't really think you understand how our government works. District courts, appeals courts, and supreme courts are *specifically* charged with overturning the will of the voters. They are *precisely* in place to be dictators of the law, and to subvert the electorate and the will of the people. Even when judges are elected, they do not have a responsibility to represent the majority of voters -- if they did, they wouldn't be doing their job.

@62. I never once said or even intimated homosexuals could be loving parents nor that they want to provide for the children the obtain: LEARN TO READ without your built in bias.
Oh, please. If you thought that gay and lesbian parents could be loving parents, you wouldn't have claimed that they view children as "accessories". Just own up to the fact that you're a bigot, and we'll move on.

I've never been a victim. I have never whined about ... whatever you imagine. I am pissed off and furious that you dumb-asses inflicted that incompetent on us and that he then inflicted Obamacare on this country. I am pissed off and furious. But fury is not a synonym for victimhood. I don't want pity for what you inflicted on this country - I WANT IT GONE.
You're wallowing in victimhood. You cannot abide by the fact that our democratic system dares to produce policies that go against your political views. As a result, you whine, you moan, you name-call, and you stamp your feet like a three-year-old having a temper tantrum about truly absurd things like the First Lady and her healthy eating campaign. And while people have CLEARLY demonstrated that you have received benefits from Obamacare, you simply want to complain about as many things as you can dream up to get sympathy and attention.

From the guy who whines he doesn't use invective, wants informational welfare then has a tantrum when it's provided by a source he doesn't approve. Tell me, all these stOries, articles editorials and opinion pieces i reference, DO YOU GET THEIR POINT OF VIEW *ANYWHERE* in what you read or watch?
I don't whine -- I point out that you have the emotional stability of a four-year-old, and the debating skills to match. And in terms of referring to outside sources, I can certainly get a point of view that makes sense. Shrill partisanship -- either way, I might add -- just doesn't appeal to me, and is not proof of anything.

Unfortunately, you simply point to opinion pieces as "fact", and try to take credit for it. (Hint: Townhall.com is NOT an unbiased news source.)

If you can't appreciate learning WHY your opponent believes what they do, you have laready lost. Further, why would I referenCe what I read at Salon, Daily Beast, Huffpo or at Comedy Central? YOU already have it imprinted and ready to regurgitate.
I don't care if you refer to it. My point is that you restate other people's biased opinions, and claim them as fact.

Does your Obamacare provide help for your Tourette's?
What Obamacare?

Picking and choosing Catholic doctrine that suits your narrative, are you? The death penalty is too easy. Someone commits and is convicted of a heinous crime? Isolate them from civil society.
Great -- I await your protests of capital punishment, then. And the problem is not that *I* pick and choose Catholic doctrine, it is that conservatives like you that claim to be religious prefer the buffet while preaching the orthodoxy and rationalizing your choices.

That I don't believe in stupid conspiracy theories that don't make sense? Oh? "and simply may not come to pass " And what should we have imagined you meant by that IF indeed you knew it was a countdown until the day we're rid finally of the incompetent?
You're not making any sense. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the President will declare himself "king for life". Clinging on to paranoid fantasies simply makes you look like a fool.

On another note, I read an article today... oh HORRORS! It was on Town hall -QUICK! LOUD LEFTY'S, AVERT YOUR EYES!!!
Meaning that it is a heavily biased source which obviously follows the party line. Gotcha. And what's the point of reproducing the ENTIRE story here? I probably would have skimmed through it on their website. You're just wasting space. (More than usual.)

Seattle has stagnated under years of one-party rule by the Democrats. Its population increased between 1990 and 2012 from 515,761 to only 634,535. In contrast, Phoenix, which is thriving with a more pro-business climate, saw its population boom during that same period from 983,015 to 1,488,750, about a 50 percent increase.
That is evidence of... well... moving the goalposts to fit your hypothesis. I can just as easily say that Seattle's population increased by 8.2% percent between 2000 and 2010 without any increase in land area, while Phoenix's population rose by 9.2% in that same period with the help of annexation. You're saying nothing of consequence.

Posted by: demo kid on May 20, 2014 11:33 PM
71. Keep going guys! You're on the cusp of persuading one another. I can FEEL it.

Posted by: Carlton on May 21, 2014 11:55 AM
72. "Try comparing Seattle to Oklahoma City (sorry, former Sonics fans), which will show more favorably for OKC. Tourism is better in Seattle, but inner city filth (crime) is higher in Seattle."

Typical no-info srupe, spewing nonsense pulled from his ass as facts. For your information, OKC has a much higher crime rate than Seattle, it's not even close. Of course, there's one catagory not represented in the FBI crime table for 2012 - the theft of Seattle's NBA team by wingnut OKC Swiftboaters.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012

Seeing as how you're one of the Cliven Bundy supporters in these threads, I'm sure you'll have a race-based explanation for what ails OKC.
What is it, Stupe? Does OKC have too many of those "nappy-headed, jive-talking bongos" you and Amused like talking about?

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on May 21, 2014 12:44 PM
73. Why does it take courage to have it and live it?

Yep, I'm going to be foolish enough to believe that was a sincere question and I'm going to attempt to answer it. I fully expect to be ridiculed, denigrated and called names (you have the emotional stability of a four-year-old). But know, when I am, it says more about the mockers than it does about me ... or my faith.

Faith takes courage because it's hard to admit, to BELIEVE, there is something greater than ourselves, something other than the great ME, the awesome I - something that can not be touched, heard, seen or controlled. The most well known prayer in the world, The Lord's Prayer, contains one line, four little words that take courage to believe, to live: THY WILL BE DONE.

Further, how can you ever trust another human being without faith? You cannot. Faith allows us to take risks in life, to go in the direction where the paths are unknown, it makes us ready to accept some pain and disappointments ... all things that DEMAND courage.

[Faith] makes us ready to accept some pain and disappointments ... This courage is required to face the setbacks and pains of life as a challenge which will strengthen us rather than treat it as something which should not have happened and which is unfair ... We all strive for safety and comfort, but whoever goes too far in this aspiration and always seeks security doesn't have faith. If we make different systems for our defense and security, then we ourselves become a prisoner due to the lack of faith and courage. It takes courage to have belief, certain values and life itself and to take the plunge without knowing the end result.

It's easy to live when you are your own god - there are no demands on you, no one to judge you. And that's what the visceral hatred of God and the faithful is all about: JUDGEMENT. Moral standards, societal standards, even the law are all judgements and ultimately they all lead back to God's law: The Ten Commandments.

Ignore faith and God - well it's pretty easy to ignore moral and societal standards too. It's easy to ignore/dismiss/promote killing a child in the womb if the great ME/I judges that life has no value or judges that it's "inconvenient". It's easy to force acceptance of the immoral when you demand people have no right to "judge" and you believe you will never be judged except by yourself. It's easy to dismiss the evil in others when you refuse to accept the earliest premise of rule and judgement. "Right and wrong" "good and evil" cease to exist because there is simply no definition of them when everyone creates their own definition.

Even the Founding Father's of this country recognized that.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." --Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

John Hancock, 1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us. --History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; --Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.

Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution:

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace." --As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

James Madison, 4th U.S. President

"A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven."
--Written to William Bradford on November 9, 1772, Faith of Our Founding Fathers by Tim LaHaye, pp. 130-131; Christianity and the Constitution -- The Faith of Our Founding Fathers by John Eidsmoe, p. 98.

James Monroe, 5th U.S. President:

"When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good." --Monroe made this statement in his 2nd Annual Message to Congress, November 16, 1818.

John Quincy Adams, 6th U.S. President

"The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made 'bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God' (Isaiah 52:10)." --Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 248.

William Penn, Founder of Pennsylvania

"I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God in and to those ages in which they were written; being given forth by the Holy Ghost moving in the hearts of holy men of God; that they ought also to be read, believed, and fulfilled in our day; being used for reproof and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect. They are a declaration and testimony of heavenly things themselves, and, as such, we carry a high respect for them. We accept them as the words of God Himself." --Treatise of the Religion of the Quakers, p. 355.

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution:

"I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than our Maker.

"If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into all the world would have been unnecessary. The perfect morality of the gospel rests upon the doctrine which, though often controverted has never been refuted: I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God." --Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, published in 1798.

John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University

"While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh ... If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

"What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

"Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country."
--Sermon at Princeton University, "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776.

Patrick Henry, Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." --The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

Communism and dictatorial regimes HATE faith because they cannot control it or the people with it. Sure, they may "allow" state religion, but they control with an iron fist.

The Chinese government sees Christianity as subversive of their totalitarian communist regime and also empowering for the mass population, which they aim to control through their communist ideologies.

In the recent past we see how the Communists hated and feared the very idea of Pope John Paul the II and his words to the faithful. And ultimately they were right to fear him as we all know that communism fell in Eastern Europe.

Lech Walesa:

"And this is where this incredible thing happened. Just when we were experiencing this loss of faith, a Polish cardinal became the Pope. A year after his election, John Paul II decided to visit Poland. The entire world was focused on us, a little communistic country, where the entire nation suddenly embraced their Pope," Walesa says.

"All the communists were pulling their hair out. The spirit was so contagious that even some party members and militiamen would genuflect in public! Seeing that change, we were all amazed and also stopped fearing them, realizing that none of them were real communists. Actually, we called them 'radishes' - red on the outside, but white inside.

"Unfortunately, the Soviet communists were standing by and observing all this change sweeping the nation. There were immediate consequences - someone even tried to assassinate the Pope. But as we all remember, he turned out to be immortal, which caused even a greater panic in Moscow,"

"At that crucial moment, Gorbachev was elected Secretary General of the Communist Party, with his big ideas to reform the regime before it fell apart. But I knew that he was going to fail because there was no way to stop the change.

"The rest is history, but the Holy Father's role was enormous and pivotal. He gave this process the powerful momentum it needed and I believe without him, this change would have never happened."

To stem the movement toward democratization in Poland, the communists banned all gatherings and organized demonstrations, Walesa says. "But the Pope 'organized' millions of people into praying together. That helped us tremendously. So the Pope actually never wanted to start a revolution. He just did his job and we took advantage of it.

"Without the Pope, I suspect we wouldn't have been able to break that regime for a long time."

And that is none too different than BIG government as opposed to self governing.

Could it be that someday, people will wake up and discover that they have become so dependent upon the government, that they can no longer live without it? Will they then be willing to sacrifice their moral beliefs to secure all its benefits and privileges? Will they ultimately recognize the government, rather than God, to be the key to their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

We know that, in the early years of our country, the government had a much more limited role. There were far fewer laws controlling the way we lived. In addition, there was an accepted moral law that formed the basis of our laws. This moral law was the ultimate authority of how we conducted ourselves. George Washington wisely said, "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."

Much has changed since then. Today, this great country has been effectively persuaded to embrace secularism. We live as if we no longer need God. This philosophy has been perpetuated through radical interpretations of the separation of church and state. The natural consequence of this reasoning is that our government no longer is submitted to any higher power than itself. It is now free to grow and control as it pleases.

Tragically, under this philosophy, Christianity has become a threat rather than a necessity for a safe and prosperous society. What a reversal from our glorious past! Already, militant secularists are winning the battle of hearts and minds and decreasing the influence of moral law in our society. Those who stand for biblical truth are increasingly disenfranchised. In this culture of tolerance, a biblical worldview is no longer tolerated.

History is rich with examples of people who had courage to face poverty, sickness, torture and death for their faith, but really you only need to look at todays headines and the reporting about Meriam Ibrahim, a young woman born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6, and she was raised by her mother as a Christian. She is married to an American who is also Christian. Because her father was Muslim, the Sharia law court considered her to be the same. It refused to recognize her marriage to a Christian and also convicted her of adultery, with an additional sentence of 100 lashes.

"I was never a Muslim. I was raised a Christian from the start," she said.

Before imposing the sentence, the court gave her an opportunity to recant her Christian faith, but Elnabi said Ibrahim refused to do so, declaring: "I am a Christian, and I will remain a Christian.".

She is now 8 and a half months pregnant, shackled in prison awaiting hanging. Her young son is in prison with her.

An eight-months pregnant woman is being kept shackled to the wall of her cell as she awaits hanging, her husband has said after visiting her in prison.

Meriam Ibrahim, 26, was sentenced to death in Sudan on Thursday for refusing to recant her Christianity and for marrying Christian Daniel Wani - a Sudanese man with US citizenship who lives in New Hampshire

The court found her guilty of apostasy - leaving Islam - even though Miss Ibrahim testified that she was never a Muslim, and was brought up as a Christian by her Ethiopia-born mother.

Miss Ibrahim's sentence will not be carried out until after their baby is born. But in prison with her is the couple's 20-month-old child, Martin. Ask yourself WHY she won't be hung until the baby is born.

Recanting her Christianity would be so easy - it would give her the immediate reward of release, of knowing her unborn child, of LIFE.

Faith takes courage today in America. It is we who are strong in that faith that will not allow 'political correctness' to cow us into submission. We and our beliefs are constantly under assault, not just with hateful words but with violence and the force of tyranny. Look only to schools that don't allow children (children!) to read their Bible - or even bring it to school. Yeah, yeah, we can all hear the screaming now: SEPARATION OF CHURCH ND STATE!!!!!.

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State

Wouldn't we love a very public miracle like the one at Fatima to SHOW the multitude the face of God through Mary? Wouldn't that make our living and modeling our faith so much easier? Yes! But we take our joy in the small miracles, the simple interventions and the daily glory.

I love going to Mass. I don't think my eternal soul depends upon my being there, but I go because I love it: I love the rich tradition, the history, the peace. I love remembering that whether I was at Koln Cathedral, Notre Dame, Morocco, Gibraltar or a simple countryside church in Rhonda, that those people and I share something so intimate yet so much more than all of us together. Though we couldn't understand each other in conversation, we shared a common language. And FAITH.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 21, 2014 01:09 PM
74. " I never once said or even intimated homosexuals could be loving parents nor that they want to provide for the children the obtain: LEARN TO READ without your built in bias."

The lack of the words "not" and "don't" in your original sentence makes it one of the most accurate statements you've ever made here -- rather a low bar, yes, but still noteworthy.

I would like to be there when you tell a new mother, just done with her 36 hours of labor, how she "obtain[ed]" her child in some presumably inferior manner -- but you're graciously and generously willing to concede she might, in fact, be an adequate parent. Your shock and surprise at her reaction would be priceless.

Mr. Kerr, with political bedfellows like Rags and KDS, I can see why you question the efficacy of education.

Posted by: tensor on May 21, 2014 02:59 PM
75. I would like to be there when you tell a new mother, just done with her 36 hours of labor, how she "obtain[ed]" her child in some presumably inferior manner -- but you're graciously and generously willing to concede she might, in fact, be an adequate parent. Your shock and surprise at her reaction would be priceless.

You didn't read what I said.

Nice try. Especially in light of the fact that I have carried and given birth to 3 children and lost one.

Could you possible be more despicable in your attempt to ridicule and dismiss those with whom you disagree? I suspect you can ... and will.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 21, 2014 03:31 PM
76. And the Pope, whom you love to quote when you think his message is convenient and mock when you don't has a message for YOU. It speaks directly your smugness regarding your knowledge/intellect and my answer regarding the courage of faith.

"The gift of knowledge puts us in tune with God's gaze on things and on people" the Pope reflected in his May 21 weekly general audience, continuing his catechesis on the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

"Through this spiritual gift, we are enabled to see every person, and the world around us, in the light of God's loving plan."

Addressing the thousands gathered in St. Peter's Square, the Roman Pontiff noted that "This knowledge does not limit itself to the human knowledge of nature," but instead "allows us to perceive the greatness of God and his love for his creatures" through creation.

"In a sense, we see the beauty, harmony and goodness of all creation with the eyes of God its maker" he continued, observing that "As is clear from the lives of Saint Francis of Assisi and so many other saints, the gift of knowledge gives rise to grateful contemplation of the world of nature and joyful praise of the Creator."

Noting how "the beauty and immensity of creation speaks to us of the Creator and invites us to worship him," the Pope drew attention to the bible's account of creation in Genesis, saying that it "underscores that God himself was happy with his work: all was good and man was 'very good.'"

This gift, he went on, teaches us to "exercise wise stewardship" over our resources "for the benefit of the whole human family."

He then described how the gift of knowledge also "prevents us from restricting our vision to the persons and things of this world alone, forgetting that in their order, value and beauty they point beyond themselves to God," who is "their source and ultimate end."

Seeing with the vision of God, he explained, is "A kind and respectful gaze that warns us of the danger of believing we are the total owners of creation, disposing of it as we like and without limits."

"Creation is not our property, and much less of just a few. It is rather a gift that God has given us so that we take care of it and use it with respect for the benefit of all."

Bringing his reflections to a close, the Roman Pontiff encouraged those present to ask the Holy Spirit "to help us grow in the knowledge which enables us to perceive the love with which God guides the world, to respond with gratitude and to praise him for his infinite goodness and love."

"May we see everything around us as God's work, and our fellow men as brothers and sisters."

Mock away. We expect it.

And if wicked men insult and hate you all because of Me
Blessed, blessed are you

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 21, 2014 03:42 PM
77. @73. Aha -- I see that you completely bypass what I've said, including what is relevant to this conversation, and you decide instead to launch into a rambling defense of... I have no idea. Ahh, well.

Yep, I'm going to be foolish enough to believe that was a sincere question and I'm going to attempt to answer it.

You certainly attempted, and you completely missed the mark.

I fully expect to be ridiculed, denigrated and called names (you have the emotional stability of a four-year-old). But know, when I am, it says more about the mockers than it does about me ... or my faith.

I ridicule you irregardless of your faith. I know plenty of Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, Humanists, etc. that do a wonderful job of defending their beliefs and their faith, and I can respect them even if I don't agree. You are not one of them.

I'll skip the inline commenting for now, and get to the main point of this debate: does faith take courage? I would say that it depends on how that faith is exercised, and can be broken down into two distinct parts:

1. The courage to believe in something when one is persecuted or punished for it.
2. The courage to believe in something when there is no empirical evidence to support it.

When you refer, for example, to someone being punished for their beliefs in China or Sudan, the first element of this comes into play. That is fine, but that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, or even the validity of one's position. With your example of Poland during the Cold War, being a atheist member of Solidarity would earn you just as much enmity. Same thing with being a member of Falun Dafa in Communist China, a human rights activist in central Africa, or a Communist political dissident in Turkey. I can respect each one, not because I agree with all of their causes, but because I believe that everyone has the right to self-determination and self-expression. No government or society should be able to repress the freedom of personal expression or belief.

Additionally, I would say that in some contexts NOT believing is the more courageous choice. If you are a firmly committed atheist in a very religious community, and you risk being ostracized for speaking out about your belief (or lack of belief), it is courageous to stick to what you know to be true.

Conflating the first part with the second is a bigger problem. Believing that God created the world in six literal days, or that Mohammed was physically brought to heaven, or that Haile Selassie was the messiah is not supported by available evidence. You can believe what you like because of your feelings and emotions, or because of what you were told as a child or what people tell you now, or even what you read in holy texts. However, when they conflict with real-world evidence and you simply trivialize and rationalize this evidence to maintain your beliefs, you are being lazy. When you take it a step further and rely on faith and not evidence to control the people around you, then you become an enemy of freedom.

As far as faith being a prerequisite for trusting other people or having a just society, that's patently absurd. The same religion, the same Bible, the same professions of faith, and the same belief in God were all present during dark periods of our history when they were used to justify truly despicable acts. If we no longer believe that genocide, execution of non-believers, slavery, and so forth are ethical, but still believe in the same holy books that were used back then, it is society itself that has changed, not the religion. People may try to justify this with selective reading of the Bible, but in reality, these changes did not originate from faith over time.

Taking risks is also not rooted in religious faith, nor is dealing with pain and disappointment. I can completely agree with the idea that one's beliefs (Christian or non-Christian) can HELP with such things, but it isn't EXCLUSIVE to such things. Skydivers are not solely Christian, and you can be atheist and have a positive attitude about your life.

It's easy to live when you are your own god - there are no demands on you, no one to judge you.

I would strongly disagree with this statement, as I believe that firmly religious people that follow doctrine blindly are simply lazy in this regard. If someone tells you what to do, what to believe, and what to condemn, and then tells you that you will receive a holy reward from the divine for doing so, your actions are clear. People with faith such as this are willing to eschew rational thought and have their thinking done for them.

Conversely, if you are an atheist (or even an agnostic), you need to grapple with a pretty major metaphysical concept -- that you have a limited time on this planet, and after it's spent, there's nothing else. There is no reward or penalty for being good or bad, and no omnipotent, Santa-like judge evaluating your every move. This means that in the short time that you have on earth you need to make an very personal, non-metaphysical choice about whether you do good, positive things, or whether you are negative and destructive to society. I trust the good things that atheists do more because they know that they are not automatically going up to heaven for doing them.

Could it be that someday, people will wake up and discover that they have become so dependent upon the government, that they can no longer live without it? Will they then be willing to sacrifice their moral beliefs to secure all its benefits and privileges? Will they ultimately recognize the government, rather than God, to be the key to their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I hate to break it to you, but neither one is the source of "life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness". Governments may protect the ability for people to enjoy all three, but not even liberals believe that it is the source of any of it.

Similarly, there are PLENTY of atheists and non-Christians that avail themselves of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and successfully enjoy all three to the same extent that religious folks do. There is nothing intrinsic about Christianity that means that you somehow appreciate all of these things more.

Finally, an omnipotent, all powerful being does not likely care whether certain industries in the country are nationalized or private, or whether the government chooses to regulate drinking water contaminants, or if the City of Seattle chooses to extend pre-school to all children. Assuming that vague complaints about "big government" have anything to do with religion is absurd.

Today, this great country has been effectively persuaded to embrace secularism. We live as if we no longer need God. This philosophy has been perpetuated through radical interpretations of the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state has been successful in increasing our freedom. Assuming that my children should be forced to pray in school, or that my tax payments should be used to fund religious celebrations, or that a faith that I do not believe in should be the rationale for the laws of the country in which I live is sheer nonsense, and restricts my ability to live my own life the way I choose.

Faith takes courage today in America. It is we who are strong in that faith that will not allow 'political correctness' to cow us into submission.

Of course, the translation of this is, as before, that you love to whine about how you're a victim. Poor Rags -- butthurt that you cannot insult someone else's culture and religion. So sad. You live in a society where people don't always believe what you believe, and you cannot simply persecute or exclude your opponents, so you have translated this to a grievous slight against yourself and your conservative ideals.

Never mind, of course, that "political correctness" often just means "don't be an asshole".

Tragically, under this philosophy, Christianity has become a threat rather than a necessity for a safe and prosperous society. What a reversal from our glorious past! Already, militant secularists are winning the battle of hearts and minds and decreasing the influence of moral law in our society. Those who stand for biblical truth are increasingly disenfranchised. In this culture of tolerance, a biblical worldview is no longer tolerated.

Under this philosophy, Christianity isn't required to participate in society, nor should be. And it should never matter whether someone has a biblical worldview, until that worldview is used to take rights and freedoms away from others.

But still, try to be an atheist and run for president. I'm sure that you'll understand quickly that Christianity IS required to participate in certain aspects of society.

We and our beliefs are constantly under assault, not just with hateful words but with violence and the force of tyranny. Look only to schools that don't allow children (children!) to read their Bible - or even bring it to school. Yeah, yeah, we can all hear the screaming now: SEPARATION OF CHURCH ND STATE!!!!!.

Oh please... you're playing the victim yet AGAIN. Boo frickin' hoo.

Religion in schools is always a touchy thing, and one that isn't always handled well by every school system or teacher. I have no problem with children reading a Bible in their free time, at school or elsewhere. I even have no problem with the Bible being studied as a historical document. Some folks completely mess up in situations like this, and freak out about any little thing.

The issue comes when students assert the superiority of their religion during school time. Unless I send my child to a religious school, there is no reason for someone else's religion to be incorporated into book reports or dioramas or art projects to preach to my children. I feel the same way regardless of the faith -- the education system should not be a venue for proselytizing to nine-year-olds.


Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2014 05:13 PM
78. @75. Nice try. Especially in light of the fact that I have carried and given birth to 3 children and lost one. Could you possible be more despicable in your attempt to ridicule and dismiss those with whom you disagree? I suspect you can ... and will.

So now you're using your own tragedies to justify your bigoted attitudes towards gay and lesbian parents? That's low, and not quite that Christian of you.

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2014 05:16 PM
79. @76: And the Pope, whom you love to quote when you think his message is convenient and mock when you don't has a message for YOU. It speaks directly your smugness regarding your knowledge/intellect and my answer regarding the courage of faith.

To my knowledge, I have never mocked the Pope. Still, I marvel at situations like this when you quote something that you obviously do not read, especially when you blindly assert your superiority by quoting a message of humility.

You get more arrogant and hypocritical by the day, Rags.

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2014 05:21 PM
80. @ 72 - Blind as a bat -
"OKC has a much higher crime rate than Seattle, it's not even close. Of course, there's one catagory not represented in the FBI crime table for 2012 "

I'm calling your bluff, radical dude; Citation please.

@68 - Conservatives would prefer to live in an oligarchy and be ruled over by a dictator... as long as that dictator is white, religious, and bigoted against gays and lesbians.

Posted by demo kid at May 20, 2014 11:27 PM

That is your lunatic opinion - your inner bigot is showing. You are merely projecting your inner desires. Your high falluting accusations merit a citation. If not, you are blowing cannibus smoke and channeling Howard Dean.

Posted by: KDS on May 21, 2014 05:28 PM
81. "I'm calling your bluff, radical dude; Citation please."

Citation? Do you even know what that means? I realize you've been dinged countless times for lack of citations, and deservedly so. Rather than provide them, you've started asking for them. Try to understand, failing to provide your own citations and then asking for citations from others when they've already been given to you isn't making you look terribly bright. KNow what I mean?

There is no bluff, Stupe. Refer to the FBI crime statistics page to which I linked in my previous comment - my citation. Get it yet? Here it is again.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012

You can see for yourself that the violent crime rate in OKC is nearly twice the rate of Seattle and the murder rate many times more. Every crime statistic but one is far higher in OKC than Seattle.

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on May 21, 2014 05:52 PM
82. "the Pope, whom you love to quote when you think his message is convenient"

Speaking of your blessed self and your blessed Pope, it appears that we can add climate change to the subjects we know of on which he cares about and on which you two disagree - Randian greed and the death penalty. Jesus H. Christ, Rags, it seems these days even a Godless commie-fascist stands nearer to God than thee.

For KDS, the link that follows is the citation. Catching on yet?

http://www.drudge.com/news/179149/pope-god-wants-us-address-climate-change

Posted by: Dr. Zatoichi, the Blind Surgeon on May 21, 2014 06:14 PM
83.
Errata; Oklahoma City showed more murders in 2011 & 2012 than Seattle and slightly higher in the other violent crimes. the populations of the two cities are essentially the same.

I glanced over your typical drivel and did not see the citation. Your PR blows ! F U very much.

Posted by: KDS on May 21, 2014 06:40 PM
84. The Secret For michael kors bags uk
new balance 1080 http://www.fcmq.qc.ca/frnb.html

Posted by: new balance 1080 on May 21, 2014 06:44 PM
85. The things you ought to do to discover more regarding michael kors bags uk well before you're abandoned.
cheap michael kors handbags http://www.osa.co.uk/images/mkuk.html

Posted by: cheap michael kors handbags on May 21, 2014 06:46 PM
86. @80: That is your lunatic opinion - your inner bigot is showing. You are merely projecting your inner desires. Your high falluting accusations merit a citation. If not, you are blowing cannibus smoke and channeling Howard Dean.

Citation? Just Google for any conservative that creamed their pants when Putin restricted free speech about gay and lesbian issues.

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2014 06:47 PM
87. @83: Errata; Oklahoma City showed more murders in 2011 & 2012 than Seattle and slightly higher in the other violent crimes. the populations of the two cities are essentially the same.

Therefore, your earlier statement about "inner city filth" appears to be in error?

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2014 06:51 PM
88. Innovative michael kors bags uk Ebook Demonstrates Method To Rule The michael kors bags uk Arena
michael kors sale uk http://www.sonarupa.co.uk/temp.html

Posted by: michael kors sale uk on May 21, 2014 06:52 PM
89. The Actual Key To Success For michael kors bags uk
michael kors factory outlet http://www.localpopulationstudies.org.uk/aboutus.html

Posted by: michael kors factory outlet on May 21, 2014 06:54 PM
90. Enterprise Report - michael kors bags uk Defined as An Absolute Must In recent times

Posted by: cheap michael kors on May 21, 2014 06:55 PM
91. Reasons why no one is raving about michael kors bags uk and therefore things one ought to take care of as we speak.
longchamps sac http://www.investigators-inc.com/cron.html

Posted by: longchamps sac on May 21, 2014 07:26 PM
92. The Magic Recipe For michael kors bags uk
sac homme longchamp http://www.sikhawards.com/download.html

Posted by: sac homme longchamp on May 21, 2014 07:27 PM
93. "You didn't read what I said."

Yes, I did:

"Homosexual male couples DON'T have children - they obtain them - like tchotchkes or art."

"And check your biology: MALES, whether hetero or homo, do not HAVE children - they do not have the biological equipment nor capability to do so. Therefore, absent a wife or stupid woman willing to procreate without the benefit of marriage, they must OBTAIN them."

So, why bother to specify "male couples" if you were referring to all men, everywhere, ever? Why bother sneering about "[h]omosexual male couples" who acquire "tchotchkes" if you really meant to include every couple with at least one male partner?

You got caught vomiting your vile bigotry onto this dialog, and when called on your disgusting words, you fled like a coward. That's some truly inspirational moral superiority you chose to display; we Seattle liberals must be really wicked to resist it.

Posted by: tensor on May 21, 2014 07:27 PM
94. Why not a soul is covering michael kors bags uk and therefore the thing one should take care of today.
sac longchamps pliage http://www.davicomfg.com/project.html

Posted by: sac longchamps pliage on May 21, 2014 07:29 PM
95. Do the following to discover michael kors bags uk before you are left out.
longchamp pliage cuir http://www.munoth.com/images/Magnifique-Sac-Longchamp.html

Posted by: longchamp pliage cuir on May 21, 2014 07:30 PM
96. that is fine, but that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, or even the validity of one's position.

Exactly! It has to do with the courage of FAITH. And the discussion wasn't religion at all, but FAITH.

Conflating the first part with the second is a bigger problem. Believing that God created the world in six literal days, or that Mohammed was physically brought to heaven, or that Haile Selassie was the messiah is not supported by available evidence.

You're the only one "congflating. I made no mention of that EXCEPT IN QUOTING THE FOUNDERS .

The separation of church and state has been successful in increasing our freedom. Assuming that my children should be forced to pray in school,

No one is forcing your children to pray, rather they are forbidding those that care to. Big difference there.

or that my tax payments should be used to fund religious celebrations, or that a faith that I do not believe in should be the rationale for the laws of the country in which I live is sheer nonsense, and restricts my ability to live my own life the way I choose.

Oh really? Do your "tax payments" pay for government employee's to have the days (and extra!) off for "religious" holidays? Is your mail delivered on Christmas? Can you renew your drivers license or enter a city, state or federal building? Is your congressman working? Where does that money for those PAID HOLY DAYS come from?

Of course, the translation of this is, as before, that you love to whine about how you're a victim. Poor Rags -- butthurt that you cannot insult someone else's culture and religion.

And there it is. So predictable our demokid.

To my knowledge, I have never mocked the Pope. Still, I marvel at situations like this when you quote something that you obviously do not read, especially when you blindly assert your superiority by quoting a message of humility.

And check your hubris/privelege. I wasn't addressing you.

Speaking of your blessed self and your blessed Pope, it appears that we can add climate change to the subjects we know of on which he cares about

So? His OPINION on it has nothing to do with his "job" as the head of the Church, the choice of the Holy Spirit on earth. He is also ahuman with opinions on the state of the world. One more time: HE IS NOT A HEAD OF STATE. He is responsible for NO public policy. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

You got caught vomiting your vile bigotry onto this dialog, and when called on your disgusting words, you fled like a coward.

Most males couple with females and that coupling often results in a pregnancy - "I'm having a baby"!!. Those few that do couple with another male can not "have" a child - in the sense that a woman is having a child through pregnancy, labor and delivery. Therefore the words "male couples" do indeed have to obtain a child from/through a woman are utterly and completely accurate. You are either dumber than you'd like to think, purposely being obtuse or just looking for any wedge to insult.

Nice try though. You're getting more ... interesting in your grasp to find reason to insult. You honor me with your constant albeit negative and ugly attention.

And if wicked men insult and hate you all because of me
Blessed, blessed are you

You might find you need to add Babs Streisand to the list of ugly bigots you desperately enjoy hating ... or maybe you'll just immerse yourself in an even better diversion.

Posted by: Rags wants the simple-minded followers of dishonest liberalism to have everything they want on May 21, 2014 08:09 PM
97. Sound Politics: Universal preschool in Seattle - a tax measure coming to a ballot near you
sxphyhdsxo http://www.g0uptj24iz200d5s8xra6v283c37n5n4s.org/
[url=http://www.g0uptj24iz200d5s8xra6v283c37n5n4s.org/]usxphyhdsxo[/url]
asxphyhdsxo

Posted by: sxphyhdsxo on May 21, 2014 08:35 PM
98. Rags -- somehow you left out any straight couple who produce no children between them, but who adopt children, or bring them from previous marriages. Tell us all about how all such couples see the children they "obtain" as "tchotchkes."

In the immortal words of Ellsworth Toohey, you lack even the courage of your own malice.

Posted by: tensor on May 21, 2014 08:51 PM
99. @96: Exactly! It has to do with the courage of FAITH. And the discussion wasn't religion at all, but FAITH.
You were ranting on about religion, not "faith" as a general concept. My "faith" that I won't get run over by a truck while walking in a crosswalk is distinctly different from the "faith" in a supernatural being that one cannot detect and has no evidence of. Given how much you were ranting about religion, it's not reasonable to assume that you were using a more expansive definition.

You're the only one "congflating. I made no mention of that EXCEPT IN QUOTING THE FOUNDERS .
I'm making a point that you're confusing the merits of self-determination in society with the value of irrational belief in the supernatural. You can admire someone that is willing to fight for their right to believe what they choose, even if you don't agree with that believe. Producing a long list of quotes that are not relevant really isn't my concern, as the Founders are irrelevant to any part of the argument.

No one is forcing your children to pray, rather they are forbidding those that care to. Big difference there.
No one is forcing children NOT to pray, just that it cannot be sanctioned by a government that serves all people regardless of religion. Big difference there. In fact, the ACLU -- a left pinko organization according to most conservatives -- has *consistently* defended the right of children to pray in school, as long as it isn't organized by the administration.

Oh really? Do your "tax payments" pay for government employee's to have the days (and extra!) off for "religious" holidays? Is your mail delivered on Christmas? Can you renew your drivers license or enter a city, state or federal building? Is your congressman working? Where does that money for those PAID HOLY DAYS come from?
What "days"? Christmas is the only federal religious holiday, and it's more for historic and cultural reasons now than a focus on the religious celebration. (I celebrate Christmas, and I haven't been to Christmas Mass in about ten years.)

And check your hubris/privelege. I wasn't addressing you.
It's not hubris/privelege (sic), given that you don't really address anyone.

So? His OPINION on it has nothing to do with his "job" as the head of the Church, the choice of the Holy Spirit on earth. He is also ahuman with opinions on the state of the world. One more time: HE IS NOT A HEAD OF STATE. He is responsible for NO public policy. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Creative rationalization -- the Pope matters and is infallible when you agree with him, and is just a human when you don't. Gotcha.

Therefore the words "male couples" do indeed have to obtain a child from/through a woman are utterly and completely accurate. You are either dumber than you'd like to think, purposely being obtuse or just looking for any wedge to insult.
No, your full quote was "homosexual male couples DON'T have children - they obtain them - like tchotchkes or art." You aren't simply saying that gay couples have to adopt their children or use a surrogate, you said that they are all looking for a possession and not a child. That is incorrect. Stop being a coward and own up to the bigoted and irrational things you say.

Nice try though. You're getting more ... interesting in your grasp to find reason to insult.
He doesn't need to try very hard -- you give plenty of reasons. And ammunition.

And if wicked men insult and hate you all because of me Blessed, blessed are you
Unfortunately for you, we aren't wicked and we don't insult you because of your faith. I know I just insult you because you're a spiteful mental midget that cannot make an argument.

You might find you need to add Babs Streisand to the list of ugly bigots you desperately enjoy hating ... or maybe you'll just immerse yourself in an even better diversion.
Sure... although it seems much more like gossip and innuendo than the type of explicitly bigoted statements that you spew on a regular basis.

And why would I care about Atheist TV?

Posted by: demo kid on May 21, 2014 09:02 PM
100. Standard principles of the michael kors bags uk that one can cash in on starting off today.
new balance 1500

Posted by: new balance 1500 on May 21, 2014 09:18 PM
101. Marketplace Rumor : michael kors bags uk Understood to be An Absolute Must Nowadays
new balance pas cher

Posted by: new balance pas cher on May 21, 2014 09:24 PM
102. Innovative new michael kors bags uk E book Reveal The Way To Dominate The michael kors bags uk World
new balance france

Posted by: new balance france on May 21, 2014 09:36 PM
103. The reasons why everything that you've heard of michael kors bags uk is almost certainly drastically wrong and what you need to understand.

Posted by: michael kors sale on May 21, 2014 09:39 PM
104. The essential principles behind michael kors bags uk which you can profit from starting today.
cheap michael kors handbags

Posted by: cheap michael kors handbags on May 21, 2014 09:39 PM
105. Hot michael kors bags uk Publication Explains Simple Methods To Dominate The michael kors bags uk Scene
Sac Longchamp Pliage Bande

Posted by: Sac Longchamp Pliage Bande on May 21, 2014 10:32 PM
106. Scene Announcement - michael kors bags uk Thought as A Necessity This afternoon
Longchamp Pliage Rayures Multicolores

Posted by: Longchamp Pliage Rayures Multicolores on May 21, 2014 10:32 PM
107. The reason no one is chatting about michael kors bags uk and the actions you ought to create straight away.
sac longchamp discount

Posted by: sac longchamp discount on May 21, 2014 10:33 PM
108. Innovative michael kors bags uk Publication Reveals The Way You Can Dominate The michael kors bags uk Arena
longchamp besace

Posted by: longchamp besace on May 21, 2014 10:43 PM
109. Secrets and techniques For michael kors bags uk
longchamp besace

Posted by: longchamp besace on May 21, 2014 10:45 PM
110. The reason the whole thing that you have learned about michael kors bags uk is wrong and what you want to be aware of.
Porte Monnaie Longchamp

Posted by: Porte Monnaie Longchamp on May 21, 2014 10:51 PM
111. How come all kinds of things that you have heard of michael kors bags uk is simply completely wrong and what you need to understand.
michael kors outlet uk

Posted by: michael kors outlet uk on May 21, 2014 11:50 PM
112. Exactly why no-one is chatting about michael kors bags uk and therefore the things that one ought to implement this afternoon.
michael kors handbags on sale

Posted by: michael kors handbags on sale on May 21, 2014 11:56 PM
113. Secrets For michael kors bags uk

Posted by: new balance u410 on May 22, 2014 12:23 AM
114. Collection of great steps to discover more about michael kors bags uk well before you're abandoned.
new balance paris

Posted by: new balance paris on May 22, 2014 12:23 AM
115. The fundamental principles of the michael kors bags uk that you may take pleasure in commencing today.
new balance femme pas cher

Posted by: new balance femme pas cher on May 22, 2014 12:26 AM
116. That explains why nobody is bringing up michael kors bags uk and as a result the thing you ought to create right now.
Longchamp Besace Le Pliage

Posted by: Longchamp Besace Le Pliage on May 22, 2014 01:37 AM
117. Specifically why all things you might have read about michael kors bags uk is truly false and exactly what you need understand.
solde sac longchamp

Posted by: solde sac longchamp on May 22, 2014 01:37 AM
118. Upcoming michael kors bags uk Guide Disclose The Simplest Way To Rule The michael kors bags uk Scene
sac dos longchamp

Posted by: sac dos longchamp on May 22, 2014 01:56 AM
119. Trade Report : michael kors bags uk Defined as A Must In this time
Sac Main Longchamp

Posted by: Sac Main Longchamp on May 22, 2014 02:02 AM
120. Do the following to discover more regarding michael kors bags uk well before you are left behind.
michael kors outlet uk

Posted by: michael kors outlet uk on May 22, 2014 02:14 AM
121. Market News : michael kors bags uk Thought of as Essential These days
new balance running

Posted by: new balance running on May 22, 2014 02:17 AM
122. Secrets and techniques For michael kors bags uk
new balance 576

Posted by: new balance 576 on May 22, 2014 04:35 AM
123. Howcome the whole thing you might have heard of michael kors bags uk is almost certainly wrong and what you must learn.
sac longchamp pliage

Posted by: sac longchamp pliage on May 22, 2014 04:39 AM
130. International Rumor : michael kors bags uk Thought as An Absolute Must In recent times
pas cher new balance

Posted by: pas cher new balance on May 22, 2014 05:32 AM
132. Your Actual Key For michael kors bags uk
new balance femme pas cher

Posted by: new balance femme pas cher on May 22, 2014 05:40 AM
147. Cosmopolitan News - michael kors bags uk Believed An Essential In the marketplace today
new balance pas cher

Posted by: new balance pas cher on May 22, 2014 08:06 AM
152. Something you should do to discover more on michael kors bags uk well before you're left out.
Sac Dos Longchamp

Posted by: Sac Dos Longchamp on May 22, 2014 10:43 AM
153. What we should do to discover more about michael kors bags uk well before you're abandoned.
sac longchamp noir

Posted by: sac longchamp noir on May 22, 2014 10:43 AM
154. http://www.markettowntaverns.co.uk/brand/nike-free-trainers-uk.html nike free trainers uk

Posted by: nike free 5.0 black on May 22, 2014 12:26 PM
155. A mature baby treasures elder scrolls online gold, my spouse only two memorable talls. Having said that, my newer boy seemed to be unwilling to get them at first. Shes greater numbers of a new tomboy despite the fact that your sweetheart wanted this fashionth your lady would not want them so expensive right up. When we finally saw a lot of these we had to make them!. these days this lady delivers individuals with their pants and she prefers him or her!!!

Posted by: elder scrolls online gold on May 22, 2014 09:02 PM
156. Best replica watches with genuine Swiss movement for sale
replica watch

Posted by: replica watch on May 22, 2014 11:53 PM
157. The key reason why no one is talking about michael kors bags uk and the things that one ought to implement today.
christian louboutin london

Posted by: christian louboutin london on May 23, 2014 05:36 AM
158. Crucial things For michael kors bags uk
christian louboutin heels

Posted by: christian louboutin heels on May 23, 2014 05:39 AM
164. Find out what you ought to do to discover more about michael kors bags uk well before you are abandoned.
christian louboutin shoes

Posted by: christian louboutin shoes on May 23, 2014 07:46 AM
170. The key reason why absolutely no one is speaking of michael kors bags uk and consequently what one ought to engage in right now.
louboutin daffodile

Posted by: louboutin daffodile on May 23, 2014 11:52 AM
171. As to why all kinds of things that you've learned about michael kors bags uk is simply false and what you want to know.
christian louboutin uk

Posted by: christian louboutin uk on May 23, 2014 11:52 AM
172. Howcome no one is debating michael kors bags uk and because of this exactly what one ought to perform immediately.
christian louboutin trainers

Posted by: christian louboutin trainers on May 23, 2014 04:07 PM
173. For what reason nobody is referfing to michael kors bags uk and for this reason things you ought to do as we speak.
Christian Louboutin discount

Posted by: Christian Louboutin discount on May 23, 2014 04:07 PM
174. Hot michael kors bags uk E-book Unveils Proven Methods To Rule The michael kors bags uk World
christian louboutin daffodile

Posted by: christian louboutin daffodile on May 23, 2014 04:07 PM
175. Basic fundamentals of michael kors bags uk it is possible to advantage from commencing today.
christian louboutin men

Posted by: christian louboutin men on May 23, 2014 04:08 PM
176. It is important to avoid vigorous exercise if you deal with GERD. When you find yourself compressing the belly violently, you'll discover that acid solution helps make its way up to your esophagus. Alternatively, engage in moderate action which helps you shed weight, be in form however makes sure that acidity keeps exactly where it belongs.
Christian Louboutin Shoes

Posted by: Christian Louboutin Shoes on May 23, 2014 08:03 PM
177. Medicines that are available over-the-counter in a pharmacy or local pharmacy is only going to temporarily mask acid reflux condition signs and symptoms with not much efficiency. You should consult a doctor if you find yourself using these products with increasing regularity. They may suggest much stronger prescribed drugs that protect against acid reflux from occurring.

Posted by: Cheap Nike Air Max on May 23, 2014 08:04 PM
178. Before bedtime each night, avoid large meals. Try staying away from food products three hrs prior to slumber. By lying down soon after you have eaten, your acid reflux symptoms can flare up because your stomach acids are attempting to break down all the food that has entered your body.

Posted by: Tiffany Jewelry Outlet on May 23, 2014 08:05 PM
179. Would Like To Battle Acid Reflux Disease? Begin Using These Tips

Posted by: http://www.geomstevensinsurance.com/ on May 23, 2014 08:07 PM
180. A terrific way to decrease your acid reflux at nighttime is to consume your largest meal during the day at lunch. You want the maximum amount of of your own meals to be broken down before laying for the nighttime. Rearrange your eating habits to include a major lunch time and very tiny supper.

Posted by: Tiffany And Co,Tiffany Co,Tiffany Jewelry on May 23, 2014 08:07 PM
181. Discover stress dealing methods. Simply being stressed out can make you tense up your system and this leads to one to commitment some, or all, of your respective ab muscles, leading to acid reflux disease signs. Learn to far better take care of stress filled situations and you'll find out you could have far less stomach difficulties.

Posted by: http://www.planwireless.com/ on May 23, 2014 08:08 PM
182. Having acid reflux can quickly grow to be challenging inside every single day existence. Besides the pain and inconvenience that comes along with this experience, having to explain it to others can become tiresome. By reading this tips in this article and using them, make it more tolerable to live with acid reflux!
Tiffany And Co Rings

Posted by: Tiffany And Co Rings on May 23, 2014 08:08 PM
183. Shifting enough time you exercising can help lessen the amount of acid reflux symptoms you get. Contracting your abdominal muscles can pressure any foods inside your abdomen to go back into your esophagus. It is recommended to hold out about one hour once you physical exercise to participate in any type of exercising.

Posted by: Tiffany Jewelry on May 23, 2014 08:08 PM
184. Instead of ongoing to be prone to the painful and annoying outcomes that are included with acid reflux, acquire your lifestyle again. Utilizing protective procedures as well as other basic modifications in your life can easily make a huge difference. Remember the recommendations in this post so acid reflux disease doesn't trigger a lot more problems than it needs to!

Posted by: Oakley Store Locator on May 23, 2014 08:10 PM
185. Identify parts of anxiety in your daily life and try to change them for that greater. When you practical experience anxiousness, your stomach is a lot more more likely to generate acid. This can cause heartburn symptoms. If there are people or situations that simply aren't good for you, avoid them or cut them out of your life altogether.

Posted by: Cheap Jordans on May 23, 2014 08:11 PM
186. Reflux can sometimes be really distressing. Sometimes, it could seem like a heart attack. You should not be disregarding chest pains at any time. You may well be encountering a cardiac arrest. Talk to your medical professional relating to your possibilities. You may have a critical matter on the palms and never have any idea it.
http://www.northbrookacademy.org/

Posted by: http://www.northbrookacademy.org/ on May 23, 2014 08:11 PM
187. Top rated Advice For Handling Acid Reflux
Lacoste Outlet Online

Posted by: Lacoste Outlet Online on May 23, 2014 08:13 PM
188. The Trick For michael kors bags uk
christian louboutin sale

Posted by: christian louboutin sale on May 23, 2014 09:22 PM
189. Industry News - michael kors bags uk Thought as An Absolute Must In this time
christian louboutin selfridges

Posted by: christian louboutin selfridges on May 23, 2014 09:22 PM
190. The basic principles of michael kors bags uk which you may profit by beginning today.
christian louboutin uk

Posted by: christian louboutin uk on May 23, 2014 09:22 PM
191. Career Rumor : michael kors bags uk Thought as Essential These days
christian louboutin uk

Posted by: christian louboutin uk on May 23, 2014 09:23 PM
192. All you ought to do to discover more regarding michael kors bags uk before you are abandoned.
christian louboutin bridal

Posted by: christian louboutin bridal on May 23, 2014 09:23 PM
193. http://www.prepaidpressexpo.com/concord11s.htm hlqbsq Concord 11s 2014 cqpllcktcg
Real Concord 11s

Posted by: Real Concord 11s on May 23, 2014 09:30 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?