My real name is on my posts.

Then your posts are missing half of your real name Tom. Most people on here who post under their real names post under their first AND last names, which the rules ask we do.

Or what? Tell you what when John Asisnus fesses up and converts to his real name then you can whine about other people.

“Or what?”

I wave my private parts in your general direction!

*Note to Francie: that’s a line from a Monty Python movie.*

i enjoyed that inference Jeff.
“You are simply projecting your internal prejudices onto me.”
Lori and Julie told me you were the inference, (“read between the lines,”) champion.
BTW, you only need to read about 10 % of your comments to realize what you think I am referencing is likely factual.

!?!?

Whut? You’re being paranoid again, Joseph. Cough up a link where I said Jeff was an “inference champion.”

Joseph, referring to progressive income taxes as theft is ridiculous. And, wealth HAS bee redistributed, from the bottom of the society to the top.

But, you are doing yoeman’s work defending the poor, oppressed, misunderstood rich…

“Lori and Julie told me you were the inference, (“read between the lines,”) champion.”

Show me where I said that Joseph.

Short on reality is someone who doesn’t care WHAT the founders said, and doesn’t care what the Constitution originally meant.

That would be you, Jeff.

“There you go again…”

I think we’re getting way off topic here so this will be the last time I comment specifically on this but what difference does it make if I post my first or first and last name, or for that matter my name, address, and social security number? I’m just a real person who has real opinions which may or may not agree with yours.

The fact is, there are some crazy people out there. Many people would not post what they really feel if they had to post their full legal name -but that doesn’t change the way these people feel about things. I would rather know how people actually feel about something rather than getting a non-controversial, watered down, politically correct version.

If you want the admin to “vaporize” those that have differing opinions than you, well I guess you will eventually end up with a forum of people that have exactly the same opinion as you on everything and it would kind of be like be talking to yourself.

Tom, I post with under my legal name, and don’t use the weak excuse of “there are crazies out there.” Shoot, I’ve been writing for years under my own,name, and I’ve had property vandalized and been harassed because my views are not “conservatively correct.” It’s YOUR side that produces gangsters.

What makes you think you’re so special that you don’t have to respect the same rules everyone else does? If you’re afraid to own your opinions with your real name, then keep them to yourself.

Coward…

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html

Thanks for the clarification. I understand what you’re saying now.

Zach, I don’t see things in black and white either/or the way some people choose to. Nor did i say in my first comment that I had THE answer–I was simply offering AN answer, my opinion of what I think should be done. You neither have to like it nor accept it, just as I neither have to like or accept your ideas of how to fix things.

The first couple sentences and that entire paragraph were an attempt to answer your question of “who should make more.” If you can’t understand what I’m trying to say then I’m not going to spend much time on here trying to explain my thoughts to you since I’m not out to change your mind, only offering my opinion of how I think things could improve.

As for my “what’s not to understand” comment–I made that because you seem to be trying too hard to make more out of what I see as somwthing that’s not hard to understand–pay people enough over the minimum wage to allow them to both pay their bills AND be able to contribute to the federal tax pool. For some reason you appear to have a hard time understanding why that could work. It’s not my job to keep explaining it to you–I’ve made my point.

Conservatives in general have been trotting out the 50 percent allegedly pay no taxes as an almost mantra lately. Where did I specifically say YOU were one of those complaining about that? I didn’t.

As for your we went out and worked two jobs to build certain skills etc–you dismiss the fact that it hasn’t always been that way. There was a time when families could subsist on one income and live quite nicely. It’s called middle class. That isn’t the case anymore.We now have (for the most part) high earners and low wage workers, with very few in the middle, depending on which stats you choose to believe. That’s what I mean when I say that’s one of the few parts of the past I wish were still around. i don’t see it as a lack of hard work for a person to be able to have one good paying full-yime job and be able to make ends meet as well as contribute to federal taxes. You seem to think I’m advocating hand-outs, and I’m not. But I do think the people who create jobs need to wake up and realize those who make enough will contribute to the federal tax pool, which might in turn decrease the burden on those who create those well paying jobs.

As for mistaking you for an ideologue, if I do it’s because quite frankly i don’t see you as one who champions much beyond what the far right promotes. I don’t deny my promotion of left of center ideals but if you’re trying to say you’re centrist then I’m saying that’s not how you present yourself to me.

As for making an argument on emotion v fact–that’s why it’s called an opnion. I don’t choose to base every argument on black and white fact or see every argument as having a winner and loser. I see arguments as a way to present peoples’ opinions on a topic, whether based on fact or not (sheesh that’s why it’s called an opinion) and compare the two, without attempting to say one person’s right and the other is wrong. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons you and I will almost never agree on anything.

As for your first paragraph–classic example of you overthinking what I’m saying. I never said anything about requiring employers to pay a certain amount over the minimum wage, only that they be encouraged to do so. Most employers know that happy workers make more productive ones and one of the biggest ways to make for happier workers is to ensure they’re well paid ones. Your examples are exactly what I meant when I said not excessively over the minimum wage but at least a “living wage” based on wherever the person lives and the cost of living there.

I’ve said my peace on this debate with you Zach. I’m not out to change your mind, nor will I change my debate style just to suit you. I offer my opinion here of what I see as a partial answer to the problem of so many people not contributing to the federal tax pools, and I’m not really looking for your approval of my idea. You can buy it or not, I truly don’t care, nor do I plan to expend much more time on this with you.

Zach… are you married? If not, I know the perfect girl for you. She’s 11.5″ tall and if she were human she would have measurements of 38″x16″x22″

Here name is “Barbie.”

Give it a rest, Zach… My Mom did the same thing. My Dad died when I was 18 from PSTD WWII.

Give it a rest huh Julie. No Im not married. I tried that once. Sorry to here about your father. And you should be proud of your mother. But to suggest I give it a rest is rediculous. How about you offer an opinion rather than simply suggest I shut up. I am trying to figure out the point of your post.

Lori-
I guess I misunderstood you not wanting to require a higher minimum wage. But it still holds true that prices would increase and that amount they are getting paid really doesn’t change as far as purchasing power goes. Just trying to get you to look at the whole picture.
As for your emotion argument. Wow. I guess that is why we don’t see things the same. I would much rather use fact to form my opinion and I thought you would be the same when considering the level of education you have had. I look at using emotion as an intellectual short cut. But to each is to own.

What’s that people on here have been saying about the word “assume” Zach? Oh yeah, it’s a bad idea so stop assuming you know more about me than you do. While you’re at it, consider the deficits of your own debate style before criticizing mine, and knock off the thinking that there’s always one right and one wrong answer because there isn’t. I never said I had THE answer, just AN answer.

I would hardly call it an answer Lori. That would be like me claiming the health insurance fiasco would be solved if employers didn’t purchase the ins for workers anymore. It may be true, but is so unrealistic it does no good to offer such a rediculous suggestion. And pretend like you don’t ever assume anything about me. I never criticized your debate style (I sure could but it is irrelevant). I was slightly critical of the way you come up with an opinion. And rightfully so. To form an opinion on emotions would make such opinion an ignorant one as it does not take in to consideration any thing other than how you feel. I could feel like we should give more money to poor countries governments to help the people. But it often does nothing to help the situation.
Often Lori, an answer is the wrong one. This gargage about not ever being black and white is an easy cop out to not knowing or being able to know an answer. So as you project your views on this site I hope all know you have no intention on debating and learning. This is your forum to share your feelings and try to argue around them.

Zach, refusing to always see the world in black and white isn’t “garbage,” nor is it the cop-out you see it as, it’s being realistic. Not everything has a “right” and “wrong” answer to it, often there is more than one right answer to a problem, or to put it another way there’s more than one right way to reach the same conclusion. To fail to acknowledge that is short-sighted, and I say also close-minded.

As for making assumptions Zach, don’t turn this back on me. You’re the one who complained about it, and I’ve never said I’m innocent of ever making my own assumptions. We all do it.

You’ve NEVER criticized mine or anyone’s debate style? Right, so phrases like “next time come to play,” “Again, step back and look at what you are saying. And yet again, please try to respond to more of the post. I know you wont and you will come up with some rediculous reason not to, but I have to ask you to try,” and “That might be to much for most of you to ask, but lets give it a whirl” aren’t critiques of anyone’s debate style Zach?

How about YOU worry about the deficits in your debating style Zach, and I’ll worry about any that may exist in mine. Or if you’re unable to do that how about you just accept the fact that not everyone debates the way you do and your way isn’t the only “right” way?

Oh who am I kidding? This is nothing but an exercise in futility that i should have learned a long time ago. Sheesh.

Lori- there are plenty of times where an issue is in plain black and white. But lets say most of the time they are not. Would you say abortion is a black and white issue? I have heard you voice very strong opinions which are pro-abortion. But things aren’t always black and white? That would actually be one issue I would agree with that on but I don’t think you see any grey area on that one.
Ehhhh, I might have critiqued your debate style. Sorry I said I didn’t you got me on that one. Now, get over it. You do the same thing. I also didn’t claim about assumptions. I apologized for making one.
I do understand everyone debates different Lori, but usually facts are a big part of that. See “good” debaters apeal to peoples emotions while basing argument on facts. But thats fine. I now know where your post come from and how that you don’t care about facts so long as you feel good about what you post.
And again, there might not be a right answer, there could be more than one. However the argument you made could certainly be the wrong one, as I pointed out. Good day.

Zach, the point is not everything is black/white and either/or, and it helps to know that fact. Even then it can be subjective. That’s just life, no two people are alike, and no two people see things through the same prism, and it’s fruitless to expect anyone to see everything the way you (I or anyone) do.

As I’ve said repeatedly here: I never claimed to have THE (read only) answer, just AN answer.

Good day to you as well.

Could it have been one of those people you blinked your lights at? Probably not???

Good grief, Joseph… stay in the slow lane.

Julie, it’s stuff like this, or attacks on my teaching, which makes me miss the bad old days of pseudonymous posting.

And I’ll say it: it’s always the righties who resort to ad hominems and character assassination.

I know what it’s for, thanks for……?
I simply offered an alternative. I said nothing about favorites. assume =
a$s of u or me

Joseph, I made no assumption about you, only a probably accurate one that most of us have gotten the error message you complained about, and yes I know the joke about the word assume.

FAIL.

You adumbrate your ideological postion, but NOT any kind of realistic or even normative means of reading the document.

The Founders are dead, Ray, get over it…

The only interpretation of the Constitution that matters is the interpretation of the Supreme Court — that’s one of their functions. Individual interpretation is meaningless and if followed would mean we would have a nation of men rather than a nation of laws. Individuals interpreting the Constitution would mean individuals making their own laws and would essentially result in anarchy. If you think certain laws are unconstitutional then don’t follow them and if if challenged by “the authorities” just claim the law is unconstitutional and see if that works for you.

“You adumbrate your ideological postion, but NOT any kind of realistic or even normative means of reading the document.

The Founders are dead, Ray, get over it…”

And there is what you get for objective, scholastic thought from Jeff.

Never mind that the founders SAID there is only one way to interpet the Constitution.

Face it Jeff…this country was set up to have limited federal involvement in our lives. A wealth of information proves it. Have the courage…like I told you before.

“Never mind that the founders SAID there is only one way to interpet the Constitution.

“Face it Jeff…this country was set up to have limited federal involvement in our lives.”

Ray, the Founders have no way to enforce what you say are their desires: we are on our own.

And, it’s all in how you choose to define “limited federal involvement.” Again, you have nothing to offer here except your own interpretation.

What paragraph(S) ? ( You know it to be the same article/section/paragraph(s) Jeremy is talking about ? )

Hint, Timmy:

Jeremy has no idea which part of the constitution he’s speaking of.

Ray will continuously insist the document only means what he thinks the Founders said it means.

No Jeff, I will insist the founders SAID there is only one way to interpet it.

Say what ? What did the founding fathers say in regard to “(how) there is one way to interpret it” ?

“On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/quotes01.txt

“…recollect the spirit manifested in the debates…” Now there is a real precise directive without any room for interpretation or ambiguity — can’t get closer to a statement with absolute certainty of meaning than that ! Good old “spirit” to the rescue.

“and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed.”

You left that part out, Tiney. There are plenty of references which will show you that will make the meaning “probable”, the Federalist Papers being the best resource. There is no ambiguity. The founders, even federalist Alexander Hamilton, wanted a limited federal government, constrained to its powers by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

You will find NOTHING to the contrary.

Uh-huh, ” … the probable one in which it was passed.” There’s another ambiguous statement. And as of how complete it was as passed, it wasn’t — that’s why we have the amendments. Would you repeal all those ? ( No, just the “wrong ones”. )
OFF SUBJECT.

Ambiguous?

LOL…you are in over your head regarding the Constitution pardner.

Jefferson was pretty clear, put yourself closest to the founder vision. My 12 year old understands this. But let’s look at what they said regarding Article I, Section 8 and specific provisions in it, shall we?

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

This quotation furthers the above statement by acknowledging legislation contrary to the Constitution to be unconstitutional. Since powers of Congress are enumerated and done so binding Congress to these powers alone (necessary and proper related powers included), a power outside of these enumeration without reasonable relation must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

The Framers specifically on public charity:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

LOL! You use THIS as a factual reference and say to he!! with Constitutional scholars, Ray?
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/index.html
I’m starting to worry about you, man.

Gee, ya think?! Oy.

Criminey, Julie, isn’t “capitalist conservative Republican” terribly redundant!?

As Homer Simpson said, “it just gets worse and worse!”, LOL, I guess Calif really thinks all those quotes can somehow make his interpretation of the Constitution the only true one. Again, only the rulings of the Supreme Court matter — any personal interpretation, zero (absolute zero), zip, nothing. (If the Constitution was a matter of personal interpretation then it would be meaningless.) Again, off subject.

You’re not off topic, Timmy. Oh, let me throw a bone to Sergeant First-Class Calef: “Bad boy, Timmy, for posting under a pseudonym.”

The “originalism” Ray propounds is a hallmark of the American right: pretend you have the only normative answers in oder to reduce the scope of the federal government so we are “free at least” to deny service to blacks, Asians, and Hispanics in our privately-owned businesses. And, as you see, Ray proposes a very struct interpretatuion of whether social welfar programs are constitutionallly permitted.

That way, the right can get us to think it was okay for beggars to inhabit the streets of nineteenth-century American cities, that it was okay for widows to either starve or remarry, and that if you are poor, it’s because you refuse to work.

Isn’t “conservatism” a wonderful thing?

Hey Kirby, if you cared to look, All I posted was pertinent statements from the founders, and nothing from the site.

I linked to the site because those are the Gazette rules, and they have the statements from the founders in a nice little package for your consumption.

First of all Jeff, who was having a sobfest? I called you posting belligerent, which it is at times. I never said I didn’t post that way.

And I want everyone to pay less in income taxes. You above all should know that. Don’t lump me in with a statement I never made.

“You’re not off topic, Timmy. Oh, let me throw a bone to Sergeant First-Class Calef: “Bad boy, Timmy, for posting under a pseudonym.”

With the whining you intiated earlier regarding what Tom posted I simply thought you would also call someone else out who was doing the same thing,,,

But that’s different apparently.

“The “originalism” Ray propounds is a hallmark of the American right.”

Huh. I thought it was a hallmark of the founders.

“pretend you have the only normative answers in oder to reduce the scope of the federal government”

Are you saying Thomas Jefferson was pretending when he uttered what I quoted him saying in my other post?

“so we are “free at least” to deny service to blacks, Asians, and Hispanics in our privately-owned businesses.”

Ahhh, the race card. Triumphantly played by someone who espouses an ideology that murdered 100 million people the last century. I’ll give you this Jeff, the Communists didn’t really care what color you were when they shot you in Siberia or in Beijing or Saigon or some of the other bastions of enlightenened socilaist thought. What’s that? Unfair? Oh well.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution took care of the issues you seem to have, Jeff. Just like I have been ewpousing to you all along. An Amendment to change things as we go along. Huh.

“And, as you see, Ray proposes a very struct interpretatuion of whether social welfar programs are constitutionallly permitted”

I don’t. The Constitution does. And the statements by none other than Hamilton (who wanted larger government), Madison, and Jefferson spell it out prettye clearly, like I have been saying all along. Even Grover Cleveland championed it 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. Huh.

“That way, the right can get us to think it was okay for beggars to inhabit the streets of nineteenth-century American cities, that it was okay for widows to either starve or remarry, and that if you are poor, it’s because you refuse to work.”

Or it’s OK to take from others and give to have nots, is that it? The link I provided speaks of none other then Daniel Boone sticking up for original intent and denying the government give money to a widow of a soldier. He said it is better when charity takes care of people, as opposed to stealing it from others, which is what it amounts to.

Better yet, it was Constitutional.
Not that you care, you make that abundantly clear.

Ain’t Communism/Socialism grand?

Good grief, Ray, you are about as accurate as a drunken German spraying the countryside with an MG42. Work on that fire discipline.

The biggest issue is your embrace of the “either/or” fallacy. In this case, and zach does it too, you present constitutional interpretation as “either you read the document as I do” or “you use the document as toilet paper.” You reduce a complex reality, in this case the rich history of constitutional law, to two simplistic extremes.

Let’s look at the Fourteenth Amendment: where does it state that private businesses are also required to practice equal opportunity? It doesn’t, and I based what I wrote above about racial discrimination based on my memory of Lester Maddox, an NRA acquaintance who would always try to pick a fight with me by asking, “Well, shouldn’t I have the right to refuse to let a black man into my house,” and my encounter on this board with some Ron Paul supporters who were very explicit about defending the “freedom” of a private business to refuse service to someone based on their race.

That’s our fundamental, perhaps irreconcilable difference, Ray. I defend the role of the federal and Supreme courts in interpreting the constitution and its amendments. By your reading, a private business would indeed be allowed to discriminate in ways that are currently illegal. And, my NRA buddy above conflated a private residence with a private business, and the Supreme Court has made very clear that when you open up a private business to the general public, you sacrifice the “freedom” to illegally discriminate, since you want to derive profit from the general public.

I could go on, but I need to fix myself some lunch, work on student papers, and get on with my day. I hope you get the point, Ray: constitutional jurisprudence is NOT a case of “it’s MY way or the highway!”

I wouldn’t have thought that.

Actually Jeff, I could have taken a position 3 years ago as a MSG but I wanted to deploy with my unit again. Thanks for asking.

And I certainly wouldn’t have figured you to be worthy of a Constitutional discussion either, T, which you aren’t.

Ever served your country in uniform? Scratch that. You wouldn’t have what it takes.

“Your remarks about socialism v capitalism are also naive as one could get.”

And YOUR sentiments, Ray are about as unthinkingly orthodox and tendentious as they come.

Ray,
I’m just saying that many people use as an argument to any new policy the, “The Constitution says this,” approach to the bitter end. I believe that just because something is in the Constitution doesn’t mean it can’t be questioned some 224 years later. Do we still need an electoral college? Did the Founders foresee a world where people all across the world could communicate/disseminate information on the order of milliseconds? I just think there are many issues in the Constitution which warrant re-examining.
Also, how are my concepts naive? Note that I did say, PURE capitalism. Also, socialism ≠ Marxist Communism. In a society where nothing is restricted by anything other than cost, there is no freedom for the masses. I believe that “mostly free” markets drive innovation, pure socialism is unstable and non innovative, pure capitalism is playing with fire.

Thanks, Greg. You are rockin”!

Rockin? Not so much Kirby.

“I’m just saying that many people use as an argument to any new policy the, “The Constitution says this,” approach to the bitter end.”

Correct. Why wouldn’t you? It is the Supreme Law of the Land. And was to be interpreted as closely to the founders time as possible. Why does ANYONE have an issue with that?

“I believe that just because something is in the Constitution doesn’t mean it can’t be questioned some 224 years later.”

Of course it can be questioned. And a process to change it is in place, showing the founders wisdom, called an Amendment. That’s the ultimate in questioning it.

“Do we still need an electoral college?”

I don’t know…if you feel we don’t you you can have your elected reps propose an amendment and eliminate it. See how awesome the document is?

” Did the Founders foresee a world where people all across the world could communicate/disseminate information on the order of milliseconds?”

Probably not, but what does that have to do with anything Greg?

“I just think there are many issues in the Constitution which warrant re-examining.”

Go for it. You have every right as an American citizen to do just that.

“Also, how are my concepts naive? Note that I did say, PURE capitalism. Also, socialism ≠ Marxist Communism. In a society where nothing is restricted by anything other than cost, there is no freedom for the masses. I believe that “mostly free” markets drive innovation, pure socialism is unstable and non innovative, pure capitalism is playing with fire.”

They are naive because you believe in a document that doesn’t say the things you think it says. You want to change it without using an amendment.

Why?

actually Jeff , it worked quite well. sunlight is the greatest disinfectant !

Are you replying to me or Jeff? You posted an “anonymous” rating by Jeff’s “students” and your post got removed.

The funny thing, Julie, is that I am accountable to my department dean, and administer an anonymous teaching evaluation every term. But notice how he instantly goes for the ad hominem: that, I argue, is the symptom of a defeated man who cannot argue with me.

I guess Jeremy wouldn’t like my evaluation form, since I don’t ask students if they think I’m “hot…”

Apparently, Jeremy never had to do any training or evaluation of others as a manager.

Jeremy doesn’t deserve the comparison, but your post made me think of Howard Bode, commander of the heavy cruiser USS Chicago during the Battle of Savo Island.

Bode aspired to flag rank, and was captain of USS Oklahoma when that ship was sunk at Pearl Harbor. Bode was ashore during the attack, so bore no direct responsibility for Oklahoma’s loss.

He was given command of Chicago, and was at the con when the Japanese cruiser force attacked. Bode, confused, took his ship out of the line, 180 degrees AWAY from the Japanese: only Chicago and HMAS Australia of the Allied heavy cruisers, because Chicago took herself out of the fight, Australia because she was stationed with the transports, survived that terrible battle.

Bode was relieved of his command, and put in command of the naval district in Panama. When he learned that the US Navy was going to hold him culpable for his command failure (Bode was ostensibly in command of the cruiser force, even as his ship was steaming away from battle), which meant an end to his career, he committed suicide.

Bode was thought to be a difficult commander by his subordinates. He also thought he was destined to flag rank, until Savo Island ended his aspirations.

Jeremy seems to be confused by our little scrums, and like Bode, has a sense of entitlement to being taken seriously, just as Bode felt entitled to higher command. And, just as battle undid Bode and revealed his weakness as a commander, this board highlights Jeremy’s limitations.

Now, Jeremy, it’s YOUR turn to lecture us about history…

Very interesting, Jeff! I won’t comment further until Jeremy “steps in it.”

Just for the sake of clarrification, I read the “rate your professor” link and none of the respondents said anything about hotness? They did however address your teaching style.
Lori, I am curious how you assume someone has no skills in evaluating people? I am sure you would say the same about me, probably due to our opposite views, but I evaluated human performance, and was in charge of a considerble amount of training in our facility for nearly 25 years. I would agree hotness, if true is not an appropriate measure in the first place, but a good manager will accept any valid viewpoint, look for confirmation, (best accomplished through personal observation) then deliver results to the person being evaluated, with measures and future expectations of improved performance.

What utter drivel, Joseph. This shows me your desperation, and if you were at all competent in assessing performance, then you would see how bogus that website is.

It’s kinda creepy that you’ve taken to Googling me. No comment on my work thirty years ago as a play-tester for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?

Uh, Joseph? I have nothing to do with this part of the discussion so you can leave me out if it.

“Lori?” I’m not Lori, Joseph. You don’t know me. Believe me, I have a full decade on your evaluation “style.”

Now… where is Jeremy?

Here we go again, Lori… The kids are getting us confused.

See why I used the noun “numbskulls?”

Bwahaha, yes I do Jeff!

Julie, I suspect you have at LEAST ten years on me as well. Just sayin’…lol.

Oy. Sometimes it makes me want to smack something…

And, yes, Lori… I WILL smack something.

I don’t need nor do I accept sympathy. I do admit to feeling that many leaning left are truly a danger to this country. The communists Marxists are not feared, they have FAILED repeatedly elsewhere on the planet.

“I do admit to feeling that many leaning left are truly a danger to this country.”

Then you know how I feel about many right leaning people in this country Joseph.

Oh, and as Jeff’s said before: he’s currently the only Marxist on this forum so don’t even THINK about lumping all the lefties in that category.

Lori… ScrEw Joseph. Don’t even think he has anything to do with wanting the best for this country.

‘I don’t need nor do I accept sympathy. I do admit to feeling that many leaning left are truly a danger to this country. The communists Marxists are not feared, they have FAILED repeatedly elsewhere on the planet.”

Typical… conservatives will never accept any of the damage that they have done in the name of “free market capitalism.”