did John Kerry just call soldiers stupid?

[Not Afraid]

The Army, Air Force and Navy sites all ask for HS diploma or GED upon applying. The Marines site was too convoluted for me to wade through. I'm not plenty smart enough.

[katiesue]

I thought it was grad or GED.

[MouseWife]

Kind of ironic, this topic of 'No Child Left Behind'.

Today I received a mailing from the school district.

It says "...the local education agency receiving money, under federal law, to provide military recruiters with access to student's names, addresses, and telephone number."

It also states that 16 schools are designated "Title I" schools becasue they receive federal funding to improve the reading and/or math schores of their underperforming students.

Funny I received this because my sons' school isn't on the list but...

But, it claims that it requires districts to notify parents of all children in Title I schools that you have the right to request and receive timely information on the professional qualifications of your child's classroom teachers. And it goes on to list different things you can ask.

Okay. Why do they have to give the information to military recruiters? And the schools have to allow recruiters on the campus to meet with the children. If they don't they don't receive funding. Why these 'Title I' schools that are in need of funding for underperforming students are on the list to have their names given to recruiters?

We do have the option to send in a paper to refuse to allow our sons name be given. Even though he is in a different school I am still going to send it in to avoid any problems.

So. How does this fit in with the topic? Go at it.

[DisneyFan25863]

Originally Posted by MouseWife

Kind of ironic, this topic of 'No Child Left Behind'.

Funny thing is...they give the info to the military anyway. We have recruiters on campus all the time, and we are no where near Title I requirements.


Not to mention there is ROTC, which is basically a giant recruiting vehicle for the military.

[Nephythys]

I don't get it MBC- who are you to call any outrage "feigned"?

You seem willing to give Kerry a pass- and trust to his intent and not his words- which even he say were "botched" but you throw out the reaction as being feigned (and it is not simply on the right)-

It just seems to me that you are willing to give credence to the one who says what you agree with- and dismiss as disingenuous the one you do not.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

It just seems to me that you are willing to give credence to the one who says what you agree with- and dismiss as disingenuous the one you do not.

Something we all do, including you.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I don't get it MBC- who are you to call any outrage "feigned"?

You seem willing to give Kerry a pass- and trust to his intent and not his words- which even he say were "botched" but you throw out the reaction as being feigned (and it is not simply on the right)-

Well, here's the thing . I'm not choosing intent over words. I heard the same words that you did and, for the life of me, have no idea how one can surmise that he was saying that the troops are stupid. I just don't see it. His words, in context, suggest to me that this was a slam on Bush, not on the soldiers. And, as of yet, I have not heard one person explain how he could have possibly been talking about the soldiers. Y'all have been asked numerous times to explain this from numerous posters but I have yet to see a response.

What I have heard is republicans shouting from the mountaintops in unison that Kerry thinks that the troops are stupid. Until they can logically explain how his words could possibly mean what the right says they do, I'm going with feigned outrage, especially considering the circumstances. It is a tactic well known to both sides of the political spectrum, as you well know. And yes, I understand that some democrats are "outraged" as well. I simply don't understand where they are coming from either.

I think a lot of people are reading a hell of a lot into his words that just isn't there. You have every right to your own interpretation but I just don't agree with it. If that is "giving Kerry a pass", then so be it.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman, posting in the wrong thread about Kerry ...

Oh, I think anybody is responsible for the words they say ... but how can anyone be responsible for other people's reactions or upset? Those reactions are completely up to the persons having them ... or do they have no free will while the speaker has complete free will? (don't answer that, Alex).


In a very real sense, I feel a speaker bears a certain responsiblity for how his or her words are taken ... in that if they are not taken they way the speaker meant, then the speaker has failed in some way. I think John Kerry failed in a big way. But even that failure does not make him, or anyone, responsible for reactions. He is only responsible for his words, not what others make of them.

If, based on reactions, a speaker judges to adjust his words, that is wisdom. If anyone claims a speaker responsible for the reactions to those words, that is folly.

So why is Neph talking about Kerry is the Random thread when there are two perfectly good specifically Kerry threads in progress?

[wendybeth]

Spreading the joy.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

So why is Neph talking about Kerry is the Random thread when there are two perfectly good specifically Kerry threads in progress?

I believe it is a test of your moderating abilities