Is This Any Surprise? (Page 4): We were doing so well right up until you said there is no such thing as more correct. Now THAT is just plain wrong. But since you are most likely not up...

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Triple G wrote:

It is just fact and has nothing to do with political leanings. There is no such thing as more correct; just as there is no such thing as being more pregnant.

We were doing so well right up until you said there is no such thing as more correct. Now THAT is just plain wrong.
But since you are most likely not up on the uses of grammar I can only think, what would he know?

Dennis

Triple G

dennis2146 wrote:

We were doing so well right up until you said there is no such thing as more correct. Now THAT is just plain wrong.
But since you are most likely not up on the uses of grammar I can only think, what would he know?

Dennis

We already know that you aren't the UHH grammarian or punctuation usage guru as you don't know proper comma or quotation marks usage, but keep going fxcking on and on and on.

And what he felt among many others were not gradable were dead, right, straight, round, clear, entire complete, empty, perfect, chief, extreme, proper, just, immediate, supreme, dumb, flat, directed, unbounded, real, positive, visible, innocent, odd, secure, wet, free, false, exact, unlimited, immeasurable, dry, evident, obvious, certain, deaf, pure, excellent, equal, guilty, genuine, sterling, eternal, full, plain, superior, universal, even, level, honest, fair, true, untrue, chased, steady, perpendicular, apparent, absolute, blind, unjudged, correct, silver, punctual, harmless, determined, accurate, permanent, incomprehensible, everlasting, omnipotent, et cetera. He also said that all the colors were non-gradable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word-matters-podcast/episode-11-very-unique

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

DennyT wrote:

Yes it does if you even try instead of juvenile insults .

Here is the reference

https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are-teachers-mostly-liberal/

But that doesn’t mean schools are in trouble because of politics.

The problem is unions . Parents should have a choice where to educate their kids through the use of school vouchers .
As long as public schools don’t have to compete for students , they will never improve !!

what a load of crap...If youwant to send kid to private school, fine...but public should not have to pay for it..vouchers are BS

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

wilpharm wrote:

what a load of crap...If youwant to send kid to private school, fine...but public should not have to pay for it..vouchers are BS

Wow! We agree on something!

Totally against taxpayers footing the bill for vouches so your snot-nosed kids can go to private schools. Parents want them to go to a specific school, that's on them financially.

That's the very same thing as having kids when you can't support them. Why should my tax dollars go to feed your brats? I don't mind giving a helping hand, until you get on your feet but, raising them for you... no way!

PS. this is a general comment.... not pointed at any one individual.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

dennis2146 wrote:

Thanks John for your input. Much appreciated my f... (show quote)

I would have left out the second instance of the word “that,” but it was not incorrect grammar as originally posted.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Wow! We agree on something! br br Totally against... (show quote)

“ That's the very same thing as having kids when you can't support them.”?? What an asinine statement, but that’s not unusual coming from you. How is that the same thing as having kids when you can’t support them? Isn’t placing your kids in public schools that you don’t have to pay for the same thing as having kids and when you can’t afford them??

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Wow! We agree on something! br br Totally against... (show quote)

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Racmanaz wrote:

“ That's the very same thing as having kids when you can't support them.”?? What an asinine statement, but that’s not unusual coming from you. How is that the same thing as having kids when you can’t support them? Isn’t placing your kids in public schools that you don’t have to pay for the same thing as having kids and when you can’t afford them??

???///??? Your whole raison d'etre is to make families that can't afford more kids ... have more kids! Now you high handedly condemn them as irresponsible??? "You're good! You're really good Rac!" Bogie

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Wow! We agree on something! br br Totally against... (show quote)

Yeah! Now employ that same logic when you ask the two thirds of the country who didn’t go to college to pay for the college tuition for those snot-nosed kids contracted to pay.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

JohnFrim wrote:

I would have left out the second instance of the word “that,” but it was not incorrect grammar as originally posted.

Always a pleasure my BFF. Must be one hell of a slow day in the provinces.

Dennis

mwalsh Loc: Houston

wilpharm wrote:

what a load of crap...If youwant to send kid to private school, fine...but public should not have to pay for it..vouchers are BS

I might be, maybe, convinced to support vouchers if the programs were equitable. As most programs function, vouchers don't come close to covering private school expenses. Middle class and lower can't afford to use the vouchers.

Only the more affluent households can cover the expenses. It makes me see vouchers as a tax subsidy for folks who can already afford private schools.

They don't need tax subsidies

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

mwalsh wrote:

I might be, maybe, convinced to support vouchers if the programs were equitable. As most programs function, vouchers don't come close to covering private school expenses. Middle class and lower can't afford to use the vouchers.

Only the more affluent households can cover the expenses. It makes me see vouchers as a tax subsidy for folks who can already afford private schools.

They don't need tax subsidies

Approximately how many affluent parents have their kids in public schools and why would they transfer their kids into private schools as a result of school vouchers that wouldn’t cover the cost of tuition in private schools? Just curious.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Ask YOUR mommy to explain.

What a stupid response to try and cover your stupid statement.

FrumCA

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Wow! We agree on something! br br Totally against... (show quote)

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see a big problem with vouchers if there are crummy schools or school districts that are promoting subject matter parents don’t agree with. I understand that critics see voucher programs as taking money from underfunded and inequitably funded public school districts and allocating it to private or religious schools. On the flip side though for supporters, vouchers offer the opportunity that would allow students to move out of failing public school systems.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

skylane5sp wrote:

What a stupid response to try and cover your stupid statement.

What… your mother can’t explain it to you either?

All you do in the attic is attack people. I don’t think I ever saw a post from you - to anyone - where you weren’t attacking them.

Grow up.