On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:57:49 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:31:16 GMT, Good Guy
><GoodGuysFinishFirst@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>We have this socialist system that says all teachers get paid the same ...
>>the only difference is how long they have worked!!!
>
>[1] I find it quaint that you call teachers' salary scales
>"socialist". I'd guess that you are a proud conservative of some
>stripe or other. You have no objection when ideas that you support
>are called free enterprise horrors, have you?
You're not stupid enough to aver that teachers who take their money
off the public teat, are 'free enterprise'?
>
>[2] In fact teachers in Ontario are paid according to three criteria:
>qualifications, responsibilities, and experience.
And whatever the union can get.
>
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:24:20 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:34:01 GMT, Frederick Jerome
><virtus@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:14:41 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>That is essentially correct. If a baseball player can get a long-term
>>>contract for a quarter of a *b*illion dollars, as Alex Rodriguez has,
>>>who has the right to say that he doesn't deserve it? If daycare
>>>workers can't get much above minimum wage, who is to say that they are
>>>worth much more? Ours is a *demand* economy. In the long run we all
>>>get what we're worth in the general scheme of things.
>
>>I have the right, and I say no fucking way he "deserves" that kind of
>>money.
>
>Yes, in a public forum such as this one you can certainly express any
>opinion that you wish.
>
>[We are all quick to acknowledge that our *opinions* do not have the
>weight of *fact* of course.
You're admitting the bilge you pump isn't fact?
My God, progress at last!
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ \ /
http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
____________________________________________________________/ /
____________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 03:41:07 GMT, John Carrick <jcarr@no-spam>
wrote:
>
>> That's what's said, all right (along with "sharing" and all that),
>>but in fact all too often it's to bring down those on top, as you
>>point out, and it is that way from the start rather than a derivative.
>
>
>Taxes on the wealthy are designed to "bring them down"?
>
>What nonsense! What paranoia! What self-referencing!
really?
You think he's rich?
----
_____________________________________________________________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ http://clik.to/bithead/ \ /
/ http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
__________________________________________________________/ /
\ __________________________________________________________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \