Liberal fluff.

[layoutshooter]

A library worker, of 28 years, was fired to defending a 9 year old winner of a summer reading contest.

It started when she called the news paper to do a story on the winner. The paper called the former director of the library who, instead of praising the kid, suggest that he not be allowed to enter because he "hogs" the contest by reading more than the other kids, year after year. What a bunch of liberal hogwash. Can't keep up? DO MORE! Not much different than punishing success by taxing it and then paying others not to work!


[h=1]Beloved Librarian Claims She Was Fired for Defending 9-Year-Old Contest Winner[/h]
"The publication then reached out to former library director Marie Gandron for a quote on Tyler's reading success. Instead of praising Tyler's effort, Gandron told the paper that Tyler "hogs" the contest every year and he should "step aside." "Other kids quit because they can't keep up," she told the Post-Star last month, adding that she planned to change the reading program's rules, suggesting they draw names out of a hat instead of awarding prizes, such as T-shirts, water bottles, and atlases, to kids who read the most books. (Gandron has not returned Yahoo Shine's request for comment.)"





Yahoo Shine - Women's Lifestyle | Healthy Living and Fashion Blogs

 

[LDB]

Some people need a head slap that sends them into the next room. Marie Gandron is obviously an ignorant fool woman desperately in need of such a head slap.

 

[layoutshooter]

I would fire who ever fired the "good librarian" and then I would fire Marie. I would then rehire the first woman.

 

[layoutshooter]

IF we were to use Marie's lame brain way of thinking we would make it a "rule" that Kim Rhode could no longer compete in the Olympics. After all, she "hogs" all the medals!


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/s...old-in-womens-skeet-setting-records.html?_r=0

Kim Rhode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[letzrockexpress]

So let me get this straight: because the librarian exhibited what I would call meddlesome behavior, she is automatically what you classify as a Liberal?

 

[layoutshooter]

So let me get this straight: because the librarian exhibited what I would call meddlesome behavior, she is automatically what you classify as a Liberal?

Meddlesome? Discouraging excellence is counter productive to the Nation as a whole. It retards the drive that is needed to succeed. This is just another "feel good" fake self esteem game. No scores in football, no grades in school etc. All liberal BS.

The Soviets called it "applied mediocrity". Just teach enough to allow them to function as drones. Easier to keep them in there place. Teach out drive and individual thinking.

Confidence is gained by completing difficult tasks. It is gained by out doing your competition. A pound of confidence is worth ten of the "pat on the back" kind of self esteem, which is EXACTLY what "Marie" is pushing for.



In the real world , those who snooze, lose. It is best to learn that right from the start.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Meddlesome? Discouraging excellence is counter productive to the Nation as a whole. It retards the drive that is needed to succeed. This is just another "feel good" fake self esteem game. No scores in football, no grades in school etc. All liberal BS.

The Soviets called it "applied mediocrity". Just teach enough to allow them to function as drones. Easier to keep them in there place. Teach out drive and individual thinking.

Confidence is gained by completing difficult tasks. It is gained by out doing your competition. A pound of confidence is worth ten of the "pat on the back" kind of self esteem, which is EXACTLY what "Marie" is pushing for.



In the real world , those who snooze, lose. It is best to learn that right from the start.

Ok, so just clarify my thinking, For instance, Would you say the second and third string players on, let's say, a high school football or basketball team should not be put in a game or maybe even a whole season because there are enough starting players on that team and winning is the name of the game? If I use your logic I have to believe that is true.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ok, so just clarify my thinking, For instance, Would you say the second and third string players on, let's say, a high school football or basketball team should not be put in a game or maybe even a whole season because there are enough starting players on that team and winning is the name of the game? If I use your logic I have to believe that is true.

No, it depends on the point in the game.

 

[cheri1122]

Some people need a head slap that sends them into the next room. Marie Gandron is obviously an ignorant fool woman desperately in need of such a head slap.

Lots of people agree with that, including me.
Marie Gandron has been fired, and a petition to restore the library worker's job has garnered a LOT of signatures - and quite a few are liberals. Because the library is a favorite place of theirs/ours. It's just sad that the conservative Republicans keep cutting the funding for them. [Along with everything else they don't personally have any use for.]

 

[LDB]

I suspect you'd find just as many liberal democrats cutting libraries, if not even more, since money for libraries buys fewer votes than money for entitlements. And they have to cut something to feed the entitlements monster.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ok, so just clarify my thinking, For instance, Would you say the second and third string players on, let's say, a high school football or basketball team should not be put in a game or maybe even a whole season because there are enough starting players on that team and winning is the name of the game? If I use your logic I have to believe that is true.

Now, since I am not under load, I have time to properly answer this.

The examples you cite are not a valid comparison. Team sports cannot be compared to individual competitions. You would have to use the example of an open entry singles tennis, ping pong or chess matches to be equal. In such cases it would make no difference how many times one person wins. That is EXACTLY what individual competitions are about.

In team sports there are different priorities and mechanisms at work. At the grammar and school levels even more so.

First, the individual portion of the equation takes place during tryouts for the team and positions. That is where the "cream" rises to the top. Those who are unable to meet minimum standards, don't make the team.

Once on the team the "best" are assigned certain roles, like starter etc, to insure a team victory. The remainder are assigned other "roles", such as "special teams" or back up roles, etc, again for the purpose of insuring a team victory.

Each team member has to learn, (one of the primary reasons for team sports in grammar and high schools) to perform one's assigned role in an unselfish manner to advance the goal of the team. At the same time the "lessor" players who wish to excel, train and practice harder to improve their skills hoping with the goal being to improve the team's chances of winning AND to become a "starter". That must ALWAYS be done in such a way that their actions ALWAYS advance the team first and the individual second.

 

[layoutshooter]

Lots of people agree with that, including me.
Marie Gandron has been fired, and a petition to restore the library worker's job has garnered a LOT of signatures - and quite a few are liberals. Because the library is a favorite place of theirs/ours. It's just sad that the conservative Republicans keep cutting the funding for them. [Along with everything else they don't personally have any use for.]

At what level do you believe that "conservative republicans" are cutting funding for libraries? IF it is at the State or Federal level, ALL funding SHOULD be cut. Libraries are a local issue only. In the case of MOST cities in SE Michigan, it is "liberal democrats" who are cutting funding for libraries. By the way, liberal democrats are NO different that "conservative republicans, they too go out of their way to cut funding for programs that THEY don't like.

 

[cheri1122]

I suspect you'd find just as many liberal democrats cutting libraries, if not even more, since money for libraries buys fewer votes than money for entitlements. And they have to cut something to feed the entitlements monster.

Kind of interesting, how 'entitlements' has come to refer specifically to benefits that include unemployment and social security, which people are entitled to by virtue of having worked for them, but not those entitlements that are given to those who didn't earn them: corporate subsidies, charitable 'giving' [in which one gets a product or service equal to the value of the 'donation' AND a tax deduction for it], bribes AKA incentives to businesses to move from one state to another, and the latest poster boy for greed in entitlements: the NFL. They all get government money, too.
You're saying the liberal Democrats are proposing to slash budgets, and not the conservative Republicans? I think you ought to tell the media, then, because they're reporting it as the other way around. State and federal budgets, it's the Republicans who demand less spending, while the Democrats think [judicious] spending is the way to climb out of a recession. I agree with them.

 

[layoutshooter]

"it's the Republicans who demand less spending, while the Democrats think [judicious] spending is the way to climb out of a recession. I agree with them."

Since when was borrowing billions upon billions of dollars considered to be "judicious" spending?? The republicans are spending FAR too much in their budget, and their plan is UNDER 1 TRILLION dollars. The last number I saw put the democrats plan at 1.07 TRILLION dollars. That is for ONE YEAR!

You cannot borrow your way out of debt. You cannot continue to fund program after program at a loss. You cannot spend your way out of debt either.

We are SO far in debt it is likely that it can NEVER be paid out. Raising taxes will just lower incomes and depress the economy even more. The house of cards is rapidly reaching the point where it is going to collapse.

Even IF we eliminated ALL military spending, which is impossible, we would STILL be running a MASSIVE deficit.

It is pure, basic economics. We cannot, any longer, continue to bring in $50 and spend $2000. The time has come to bring ALL spending down BELOW what the income is at the present rates. If that is not done, and soon, it is going to hit the fan. Nothing can change that.

 

[cheri1122]

Au contraire: we CAN borrow [and spend] our way out of debt. With judicious spending, investing the money in education [not football!], technology, and training, we can provide a stronger tax base that will in turn provide more money to repay what we owe.
Short term targeted spending on low to middle income people is returned, because they spend the money, which helps the businesses grow & prosper. Giving the money to the better off does nothing for the economy, because they don't spend it [or pay taxes on it] and that's what the government keeps doing wrong.
If you truly believe that you can't borrow money to get ahead, then I presume you've paid cash for everything, including your home, right?

 

[cheri1122]

Anyone who has ever borrowed money to begin a new business and succeeded will tell you that you CAN borrow your way out of debt - it depends on how you spend the proceeds, is all.
The Republican focus on the evil of debt is misguided at best and destructive at worst. Spending is a better issue, but they screw that up, too, IMO.

 

[layoutshooter]

Au contraire: we CAN borrow [and spend] our way out of debt. With judicious spending, investing the money in education [not football!], technology, and training, we can provide a stronger tax base that will in turn provide more money to repay what we owe.
Short term targeted spending on low to middle income people is returned, because they spend the money, which helps the businesses grow & prosper. Giving the money to the better off does nothing for the economy, because they don't spend it [or pay taxes on it] and that's what the government keeps doing wrong.
If you truly believe that you can't borrow money to get ahead, then I presume you've paid cash for everything, including your home, right?

First off, the federal government has NO business in education OR football. Investment implies return, which we never see, and IF I had never borrowed a penny I would not be wasting my time in here tonight.

If we, as a nation, can borrow to get ahead, why are we 17 TRILLION dollars in debt and going deeper each second? IF THAT plan was going to work it would have worked 16 TRILLION ago. It ain't gonna happen. It never has, never will.

The last time the United States was out of debt Andrew Jackson was in office. Since then we have taken on 17 TRILLION dollars in debt, 75% of the in the last 7 years, and yet we continue to borrow at an even greater rate.

It is a fools game we are playing and we have lost.

We give no money to the "better off". We TAKE money from them and then we DO give to those who did not earn it. Lower taxes is NOT giving anyone, any thing. It is NOT the governments money to take or give. Allowing people to keep their rightful private property, which money is, is not a gift since it is their right to own it. It is called redistribution of wealth and is the corner stone of Marxist economics.

I don't know where you get the idea that wealthy people, or corporations don't spend money, EVERY load you carry and I carry was PAID FOR by a wealthy corporation or in many loads I have carried, individuals. They buy BIG, EXPENSIVE toys and houses that working people make and build, AND EARN A LIVING DOING IT! Shoot, I even sold flies to members of the royal family in England, Lord Bolton and his son, at the Great Yorkshire Fair and made a FINE PROFIT at it too I must say. Their money spent as good as any other money I ever made!

 

[LDB]

Well first, that isn't how it works when one gets a product or service for a "donation". If the amount "donated" exceeds the MSRP of the item then the amount over the MSRP can be taken as a tax deduction. For many, if not most, that would be 15% or maybe 24%. So the evil contributor gets an item that often could be obtained at a lower cost for the full MSRP and then for every $100 above that given to the charity gets a tax savings of maybe $24, the other $76 coming out of their pocket with nothing in return except the pleasure of helping the charity. Oh, and the difference between the MSRP they paid and the 7%, 12%, 22% or whatever % lower price they could have purchased the same item for also coming out of their pocket with nothing in return as well. Yeah, that's a conservative republican scam alright.

Second, bringing business into a state brings jobs, property taxes, sales taxes etc. so it isn't money thrown away. SS and unemployment weren't what I referred to when mentioning "entitlements". Finally, I specifically spoke of libraries and made comments relative to funding cuts to libraries.

 

[LDB]

I'm sure I haven't heard everything yet but I'm definitely one step closer now.

 

[cheri1122]

Well first, that isn't how it works when one gets a product or service for a "donation". If the amount "donated" exceeds the MSRP of the item then the amount over the MSRP can be taken as a tax deduction. For many, if not most, that would be 15% or maybe 24%. So the evil contributor gets an item that often could be obtained at a lower cost for the full MSRP and then for every $100 above that given to the charity gets a tax savings of maybe $24, the other $76 coming out of their pocket with nothing in return except the pleasure of helping the charity. Oh, and the difference between the MSRP they paid and the 7%, 12%, 22% or whatever % lower price they could have purchased the same item for also coming out of their pocket with nothing in return as well. Yeah, that's a conservative republican scam alright.

So what's the MSRP on a private event ahead of a museum opening? Or a golf tournament? It's a scam, pure and simple. Charity isn't quid pro quo, period. The insistence that charitable 'giving' would plummet if the rules change is proof that it isn't charitable at all.

Second, bringing business into a state brings jobs, property taxes, sales taxes etc. so it isn't money thrown away.

I just read an interesting article about how some local officials are finding out that WalMart actually costs them money, after a year or so. The jobs they bring are about the same number as those that are lost when local businesses [bakeries, butchers, clothing shops, drugstores, newspapers] fold, but the departing businesses [which generally paid better wages & benefits] leave behind the empty retail "For rent" places that look like blight. And WM isn't a local corporation, so most taxes don't go to local government. The applications for food stamps do though, from the WM workers who don't earn enough to pay their bills...Whenever a company dangles "Jobs!" in front of officials, they [the officials] get blinded and don't look past the promises [if they aren't better jobs, why trade even for what jobs you already have?] much less look at the longer term implications. They join the chorus, trumpeting "Jobs!" as if it is the answer to a prayer, which it is: for the Waltons.

SS and unemployment weren't what I referred to when mentioning "entitlements".

Then you need to be specific, because there's a lot of entitlements being funded by the government besides welfare and food stamps. However, speaking of food stamps, here's an interesting article:

Deep Cuts in Food Stamp Program Could Impact Millions | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 21, 2013 | PBS

I like how the Republican plan to trim the cost of food stamps includes "moving people into high paying jobs". Yeah, right. Because they are voting to cut education and training programs, too, and howthehell else do they plan to move people into high paying jobs?

Finally, I specifically spoke of libraries and made comments relative to funding cuts to libraries.

Libraries are either a city or a county affair, paid for from a variety of taxes. Having been a lifelong patron, and having a sister and an aunt that work at libraries, I know they've been suffering funding cuts for many years. Hours are shortened, new purchases are cancelled, wages are stagnant, etc, because the government has to cut spending.
So they can throw money at whomever promises "Jobs!" and of course, the new stadiums and workout facilities that the multibillionaire owners and players are 'entitled' to, but refuse to pay for.