Panther/Lieberman-finish
jal...@pilot.infi.net
panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
(NOTE: Panther and Tubmanin are one and the same person.)
>:|In article <3833fa3a...@news.pilot.infi.net>,
>:| jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|MK. Provenance deleted...
>:|>
>:|>...> MK. Are we going to argue the definition of "was"? I'm not
>:|>...> interested.
>:|>...>
>:|>...> MK. Discussion deleted (Readersd may backtrack)...
>:|>
>:|> Deleted because he got caught again making false claims.
>:|>
>:|Readers may backtrack to assess the accuracy of that.
>:|>
>:|>...> MK. Still not interested.
>:|>
>:|> Truth has never interested this fool. LOL
>:|>
>:|MK. Will thorain enter at this point to complain about rude behavior?
>:|I doubt it.
>:|>
>:|> >:| Jalison was a member of a group of paid NEA shills.
>:|>
>:|> Original claims were that I was (at the time of the claim being made)
>:|> was a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and
>:|> state, a group this fool claims is a bunch of paid shrills of the
>:|> NEA. A claim, that like so many of his claims is unproven by him.
>:|>
>:|MK. Depends on what one calls a proof.
Well, it appears that your standards for proving something is very low.
>:|(a) Myron Lieberman says that
>:|Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is (at the time
>:|he wrote) funded (in some part) by the NEA.
(1) who is Myron Lieberman?
(2) Ahhhhhhh, at the time he wrote, kewl when exactly was this article, or
whatever it was written? Let's get all the facts out.
(3) funded (in some part) ? Oh, wow, funded in some part? is this
consistent with all your claims on this matter?
Let's see, shall we?
====================================================================
From: tubm...@gte.net
Date: 23 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Tubmanin asked
Mr. Alison, since you have questioned (implicitly) my motives, may I
inquire, Does the NEA support the Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State? Myron Lieberman suggests this is so (See: "The Teacher
Unions". p.105 I think).
=====================================================================
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:41:02 GMT
tubm...@gte.net wrote:
>:| Mr. Alison indicates (elsewhere) that there is a difference between
>:|vouchers and tax-credits. This is one of the fine distinctions I
>:|mentioned above. If the only difference between a voucher plan and a
>:|tuition tax-rebate plan is that, with a voucher plan, it is the school
>:|which applies to the State for reimbursement, while, with a tuition
>:|tax-rebate, it is the parent who applies to the State for a rebate, there
>:|doesn't seem to me to be a big enough difference to motivate all Mr.
>:|Alson's concern (Is Americans United for Separation of Church and State
>:|supported by the NEA?).
>:|
=====================================================================
June 5, 1999
panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|MK. By the way, jalison, how much did the NEA give your organization
>:|this year?
>:|>
======================================================================
June 7, 1999
panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|MK. By the way, jalison, how much did the NEA give your
>:|organization
>:|> >:|this year?
>:|>
>:|MK. Some time back, your e-mail address was attached to the web page of
>:|the Alliance for the Separation of Church and State, or whatever they
>:|called themselves.
=====================================================================
From: panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 23 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
MK. I meant jalison's propensity to carpet-bomb discussions with
lengthy pre-recorded messages we've seen many times before. [Does the
NEA pay him by the word?]
===========================================================
From: panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 24 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
MK. According to Myron Lieberman ["Public Education, an Autopsy", "The
Teacher Unions"], the NEA funds the Americans United for the Separation
of Church and State. I suspect that's you guys. It probably looks
better if you operate "independently".
==============================================================
From: panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 01 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
MK. In light of Csmith's closing comment, Csmith is in no position to
say that. Any source that produces evidence incompatible with his faith
in the great and benevolent NEA he will automatically discredit,
obviously.
MK. Professor Lieberman got that from the NEA's tax returns, I expect.
Non-profits are required to disclose the recipients of contributions
that they make. You might ask for the return of your local teacher's
union. The NEA could always arrange for contributions to flow through
intermediaries, like that "Citizen Action" or "Public Citizen" group
that laundered Teamster contributions to the Clinton/Gore 1996
campaign. In Hawaii, Democratic party fundraisers served steak stolen
from a public hospital. The Democratic-appointed judge gave the thief
something like 60 years to pay restitution to the State, at something
like $200/month. The State Auditor reports that the Hawaii DOE food
inventory practices are sloppy, and some food service managers say they
suspect food is stolen. There is a two-year cycle in DOE food purchases
(higher in even-numbered years). That's what aggregation of resources
is -for-. This economy-of-scale business (in schools) is nonsense.
Aggregation enhances opportunities (and incentives) for fraud. That's
why students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers would gain from school
vouchers, tuition tax credits, subsidized homeschooling, or other forms
of parent control. Only the parasites would lose, and it drives the
parasites crazy to contemplate earning an honest living.
>
MK. See jalison's response. Jalison was a member of that group of NEA
shills. Directly or indirectly, the NEA likely pays some of the posters
to this forum (misc.education) also, as a way to present and maintain a
public face here, I expect. That's the simple explanation for the
unprincipled argumentation for the anti-voucher side, and for the
extremely hostile response to "NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel". If that's really
so off-the-wall, one would expect indifference of sympathy for that
poor, deluded fellow. Instead you'all give me validating hostility.
Thanks.
>
MK. To suppose that the NEA's defenders might resort to covert, illegal
activity is no stretch at all. (a) Local subsidiaries mis-report dues
allocations, lower courts have found, so as to slide out from under
legal mandates to refund political contributions of agency fee payers
(required by USSC: Beck v. Communication Workers of America, Chicago
Teachers' Union v. Hudson. and Air Line Pilots' Associatiion v.
Miller). (b) The people who violated Federal wiretapping laws and taped
Newt Gingrich's cell-phone call were NEA activists. This is a very
dirty bunch.
>
MK. Myron Lieberman was a teacher, union activist, ran for president of
the NYC AFT. Life member of the NEA (then he woke up). Worked at
various times on both sides of the negotiating table: for teacher
unions, and for school boards. Author of "Public Education, An Autopsy"
and "The Teacher Unions". Professor of Education at Bowling Green. (If
I remember correctly). Go to a large bookstore. Go to the "Education"
section, and you can read the bio on the back of "Public
Education...".
=================================================================
From: panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 03 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
MK. No. Just admitting that my memory isn't perfect. Get a copy of "The
Teacher Unions" (Lieberman signed my copy), and find "Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State" in the index. Lieberman
says where he got the information.
MK. No evidence for the allegation that the NEA supports front groups,
like the PTA and "Americans united..."? There sure is.
===========================================================
From: panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 04 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
MK. In the following order, I: two questions, II: a legal point, and
III: ad hominem.
MK. Look for posts from igon...@my-deja.com dated 1999-10-18, 1999-10-
19, 1999-10-20, 1999-10-21, under the heading "The data, the model, and
the proposal". Read Chubb and Moe ["What Price Democracy? Politics,
Markets, & America's Schools"], Lieberman ["Public Education, an
Autopsy" and "The Teacher Unions"], and Kramer ["Ed School Follies"].
Read R. Meighan ["Home Based Education Effectiveness Research and Some
of its Implications"].
=============================================================
From: panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 10 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
MK. According to Myron Lieberman ["Public Education, an Autopsy", "The
Teacher Unions"], the NEA funds the Americans United for the Separation
of Church and State. I suspect that's you guys. It probably looks
better if you operate "independently".
MK. Back to real time. jalison then claimed to -have been- a member of
that group of NEA shills.
=====================================================================
Think that about sums it up, at least for now.
That has been what you have been saying for at least two years now about
how your hated NEA "funds" groups such as AUSC&S.
Along with this, if I wanted to take the time, I probably could find posts
where you have "suggested" that such groups as AUSC&S are actually *fronts*
for your hated NEA.
Yet, what you have to offer and have offered for two years is nothing more
then one man's opinion, one that you can't *remember* all the clearly, and
who you now concede that
>:|(a) Myron Lieberman says that
>:|Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is (at the time
>:|he wrote) funded (in some part) by the NEA.
You do realize that *in some part* could mean anything from contributions
of twenty dollar a year to millions of dollars per year?
You do realize that you have been at the very least *suggesting* funding,
as in enough to possibly be able to have a very influential role in policy
making at AUSC&S, to actually being the *parent* organization, secretly,
behind AUSC&S?
Yet, you have carefully avoided actually quoting what the man really said.
You do this after admitting you have his book, which should mean it would
be a very simple matter for you to post exactly what he said, exactly what
his figures, if any were, etc.
I wonder why you haven't?
What percentage of AUSC&S's operating budget is provided by your hated NEA?
Is it
.0001 percent.
.001 percent
.01 percent,
.1 percent
1 percent
10 percent
20 percent
33 percent
50 percent
75 percent
100 percent
I think for your comments/suggestions to really mean anything you are
going to have to provide that information, and that figure/percentage had
better be substantial.
Since you have been saying this for at least two years, and since you claim
to have a copy of his book, autographed even, it is rather revealing that
you have not posted what he really said. (after all, as I recall, you have
mentioned such info can be found on page 105 of his book--you think-- as i
recall you having said a couple.. Gee, to post one page from a book seems
simple enough, especially when I see all sorts of statistics that you have
posted in other places.
>:|Lieberman is a life member,
life member of what?
>:|and 501-c tax exempt organizations must make their tax returns public,
>:|including contributions. I presume this is how he knows.
You presume? Didn't you read the article, didn't you say he tells where he
got the info? Now you presume?
The burden rests with you, why not just ask AUSC&S or look up the info
yourself and provide it. Don't you think that after two years you sort of
have more of an obligation then the wishy washy way you have used this
Lieberman character?
FINAL CHAPTER:
panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|MK. Depends on what one calls a proof. (a) Myron Lieberman says that
>:|Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is (at the time
>:|he wrote) funded (in some part) by the NEA. Lieberman is a life member,
>:|and 501-c tax exempt organizations must make their tax returns public,
>:|including contributions. I presume this is how he knows.
Well, readers, the fat is in the fire
>:|MK. Depends on what one calls a proof.
In your case, apparently nothing beyond a desire to believe.
>:|(a) Myron Lieberman says that
>:|Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is (at the time
>:|he wrote) funded (in some part) by the NEA
This is what your hero had to say:
======================================================================
" State teacher associations were included among the most effective lobbies
in eleven of the thirteen states. In fact, they were categorized as the
most effective in ten states, which is more than any other interest group.
As Hrebenor and Thomas point out:
The rise of public sector groups representing state and local employees
and public school teachers has changed the balance of power in state
legislatures across the region. Public employee associations and education
groups have in some states become the most powerful lobbies.
Teachers and, to a lesser extent, public employees are the new face of
labor in the Midwest. Overall, in the Midwest the top ranked interest
groups or interests are not surprising: Teachers, bankers, labor, business,
lawyers, and doctors. Perhaps most interesting is the Fact that teachers
rank as the most effective interest group in three of the four regions;
they are supplanted by business groups only in northeastern states
... all in all, a wealth of subtle differences exists among the various
states in the Midwest, the fifty individual states, and the four regions.
But in the final analysis (at least in this regional study) what: is
remarkable are the growing similarities among quite different states and
regions as well as the increasing consequence of interest group politics on
the state level with those on the national level."
As impressive as this evaluation is, it understates NEA/AFT political
influence. It does not touch upon their enormous influence in local
politics, especially in school board elections. Nor does it convey their
influence at the national level, or among private organizations, such as
the National PTA, people for the American Way, and Americans United for
Separation of Church and State."
THE TEACHERS UNIONS, Myron Lieberman. The Free Press, N.Y., London,
Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, (1997) pp 105.
=======================================================================
That is it, readers, that is the entire reference to AUSC&S, the only
mention of that and other like organizations in the entire book.
There is no mention of money, there are no facts or figures offered, just
that one unsubstantiated mention of AUSC&S, and this is the "evidence", the
"facts", the "proof" that MK (AKA: tubmanin, Panther) has touted for at
least two years. Well, I know now why he was careful never to give any
details, to claim a memory not that good, to never quote the man, LOL
What a trip.
His hero offers no facts, no figures, no evidence in this particular
matter.
But, MK has implied far more then his cite ever delivers, gee, what else is
new.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
panther
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> (NOTE: Panther and Tubmanin are one and the same person.)
>
> >:|>
> >:|>...> MK. Are we going to argue the definition of "was"? I'm not
> >:|>...> interested.
> >:|>...>
> >:|>...> MK. Discussion deleted (Readersd may backtrack)...
> >:|>
> >:|> Deleted because he got caught again making false claims.
> >:|>
> >:|Readers may backtrack to assess the accuracy of that.
> >:|>
> >:|>...> MK. Still not interested.
> >:|>
> >:|> Truth has never interested this fool. LOL
>
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
SINCE you have left the other thraed where these discussion were taking
place:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
HERE is another item that Malcolm Kirkpatrick (AKA Panther & Tubmamin)
likes to post over and over, like it means something.
It is a "quote" by Constitutional Law Professor Laurence Tribe.
AFTER three examples of Panther using it in posts I have posted a
discussion on the same basic thoughts of Tribe's by two lawyers.
*******************************************************************************
misc.education,misc.education.home-school.christian,misc.education.home-school.misc
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:18:28 GMT
panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|In article <37f09ff7...@news.pilot.infi.net>,
>:| jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|MK. You really are a team player, aren't you?
Team player? LOL!
What team am I a member of?
>:|MK. From an editorial page column in the Washington Post: ...[As the
>:|Heritage Foundation quotes Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe on this
>:|subject: "Any objection that anyone would have to a voucher program
>:|would have to be policy-based and could not rest on legal doctrine. One
>:|would have to be awfully clumsy to write voucher legislation that could
>:|not pass constitutional scrutiny. . . . Aid to parents . . . would be
>:|constitutional."]...
Heritage Foundation, huh?
What was the full comment of Tribe's?
===================================================================
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 25 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|In article <3811dda...@news.pilot.infi.net>,
>:| jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> panther wrote:
>:|>
>:|> No, the issue is it constitutional or is it unconstitutional.
>:|>
>:|> That is the only issue.
>:|>
>:|MK. Well!. In that case: (Here's a canned response, but not too long)...
>:|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>:|> >MK. From an editorial page column in the Washington Post: ...[As the
>:|> >Heritage Foundation quotes Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe on this
>:|> >subject: "Any objection that anyone would have to a voucher program
>:|> >would have to be policy-based and could not rest on legal doctrine.
>:|> >One would have to be awfully clumsy to write voucher legislation that
>:|> >could not pass constitutional scrutiny. . . . Aid to parents . . .
>:|> >would be constitutional."]...
>:|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmmm, what was the part that was in between scrutiny and aid?
Why wasn't it included, seems like it might add some additional
understanding to what was being said.
Must be some really clumsy people out there then, because both state and
federal courts in the past year have ruled that vouchers unconstitutional.
Come back and talk about such when a real voucher program actually passes
Supreme Court muster. So far, none have. The one case thus far that the
Supreme court has accepted for this term deals with paying for computers,
etc and is not a real voucher program. it probably will pass muster,
because such things as school books etc, have passed in the past.
=====================================================================
From: panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Vouchers Opposition
Date: 04 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>
MK. From an editorial page column in the Washington Post: ...[As the
Heritage Foundation quotes Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe on this
subject: "Any objection that anyone would have to a voucher program
would have to be policy-based and could not rest on legal doctrine. One
would have to be awfully clumsy to write voucher legislation that could
not pass constitutional scrutiny. . . . Aid to parents . . .
would be constitutional."]...
=====================================================================
Subject: Re: Are Pell Grants and Student Loans Really Constitutional?
Date: 13 Apr 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Constitutional Law scholar Tribe views the entire argument over
vouchers as one of policy and not constitutional law (you [E.R.]point out),
and (for argument's sake) so far no Supreme Court case has
affirmatively stated that direct or even indirect aid to a
secondary/elementary religious institution is permissible, but at
least one case has said that aid programs that substantially fund
religious school programs are not constitutional.
Is such a voucher program that conforms to the above viable or
desirable? When the Muellerites won their tax write off program,
they were not satisfied; they pushed for a more pervasive voucher
program. I guess the principle of the matter was not whether they were
given a tax credit proportional to their religious school expenses,
but rather whether they could get the government to substantially pay
for the religious school education of their children. Voucher
proponents propose to test the limits of acceptable programs. As long
as this is true, the Supreme Court will have a difficult time
sanctioning vouchers for secondary/elementary religious schools (or
parents/students of same).
Is such a program desirable? No person should be made to fund the
religious indoctrination of individuals to a belief system not his
own. The fact that some parents of school age children are
dissatisfied with basic public school education does not trump this
right. The fact that public schools present six hours of
non-religious education per school day does not stop these same parents
from indoctrinated their kids to the beliefs of their religion for the
remainder of the day. If these same parents feel so strongly that
those six hours must contain religious instruction, then they should
have to "foot the bill" for such education themselves.
So far, voucher proponents have not come up with a program that
adheres to the basic principles of our Constitution and stays within
the restrictions/guildelines established in Supreme Court cases.
Susan Batte
==============================================================
Subject: Re: Are Pell Grants and Student Loans Really Constitutional?
Date: 13 Apr 1997 00:00:00 GMT
>[E. R. wrote:]
>Do you disagree with noted constitutional scholar (and revered liberal
>icon) Laurence Tribe when he says:
>
> "These decisions [Mueller and Witters] suggest that the [Supreme]
> Court would uphold an educational voucher scheme that would
> permit parents to decide which schools, public or private,
> their children should attend. Footnote 57
> The Establishment Clause
> probably would not stand as an obstacle to a purely neutral
> program, at least one with a broad enough class of beneficiary
> schools and one that channeled aid through parents and
> children rather than directly to schools." FOOTNOTE 58 [Tribe, American
> Constitutional Law, 2d ed. (1988) p. 1223]
>
[Susan Batte wrote}
Perhaps you skipped over the footnotes to the above passage:
(57) The one probable exception is racially discriminatory private
schools. See Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973) (holding book
lending programs violative of equal protection insofar as it aided
racially discriminatory private schools).
(58) But see Grand Rapids, 473 U.S. at 397 (noting as "cardinal
principle" that "the State may not in effect become the prime
supporter of the religious school system").
This does support the "attenuated benefit" theory of Mueller and the
like.
>(E. R.) wrote
>Or his later statement on the same subject:
>
> "I don't think there is any chance at all that the [Supreme]
> Court as currently composed would find a reasonably
> designed school choice plan as a violation of church and
> state.....If there are objections, they should be debated on
> policy grounds and not recast as constitutional arguments."
> [Tribe quoted in an interview in Zuckman, "School Choice
> a Tough Choice for Members of Congress", Congressional
> Quarterly, April 27, 1991.
>
[Susan Batte wrote}
I have not read the above. I would agree that there is no new
constitutional ground to cover on this issue. It comes down to
"policy-making." Either the people through their elected officials
decide that it is okay to trample over the rights of people who hold
minority religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all, or they
agree to continue to uphold the principle of separation of church and state
(i.e., respect for all people's freedom of conscience).
=======================================================================
Subject: Re: Are Pell Grants and Student Loans Really Constitutional?
Date: 13 Apr 1997 00:00:00 GMT
>(E. R.) wrote
>:|Do you disagree with noted constitutional scholar (and revered liberal
>:|icon) Laurence Tribe when he says:
> "These decisions [Mueller and Witters] suggest that the [Supreme]
> Court would uphold an educational voucher scheme that would
> permit parents to decide which schools, public or private,
> their children should attend. Footnote 57
> The Establishment Clause
> probably would not stand as an obstacle to a purely neutral
> program, at least one with a broad enough class of beneficiary
> schools and one that channeled aid through parents and
> children rather than directly to schools." FOOTNOTE 58 [Tribe, American
> Constitutional Law, 2d ed. (1988) p. 1223]
>
>Or his later statement on the same subject:
>
> "I don't think there is any chance at all that the [Supreme]
> Court as currently composed would find a reasonably
> designed school choice plan as a violation of church and
> state.....If there are objections, they should be debated on
> policy grounds and not recast as constitutional arguments."
> [Tribe quoted in an interview in Zuckman, "School Choice
> a Tough Choice for Members of Congress", Congressional
> Quarterly, April 27, 1991.
>
[Susan Batte wrote:]
Actually no I don't.
>
>(E. R.) wrote
>You don't *disagree* with him???? Am I missing something?
[Susan Batte wrote:]
Interestingly, the article you quote from brings up two salient points
which tend to prove it is neither timely or relevant to the current
debate. First, the article was written in 1991- eight years ago, yet to
date no voucher program has been proposed and approved by the Court.
Remember Alexander's statement: "I suspect in five years [school
choice programs] won't even be an issue." Well, it sure is, and if
states like Wisconsin can't even come up with a viable plan that
passes their own constitution's litmus test, I would have to say that
acceptable choice / aka voucher programs (Mueller excepted) have a
long way to go.
Second the article brings to light the fact that the plan as proposed
by the class of 1991 legislators was concerned with addressing the
needs of inner city and/or educationally challenged children - not
your average "in your face" middle class voucher proponent parent's
children. Of course over time, I can see how voucher proponents such
as these might want to overlook such "disadvantaged" children.
After all, isn't that the voucher proponent's complaint about public
schools -- That public schools spend too much money and resources on
handicapped children and accommodating the disadvantaged youth of
America to be able to properly education their children?
>
"Suggest." "probably" are not concrete statements. They do not indicate
what will happen. They indicate what might or might not happen.
>
>(E.R.) wrote
>Well, most of us (even those as expert as Tribe) hesitate to say
>flatly that, "The Constitution says X" or "The Court will rule Y." In
>fact, one can almost always view statements of that type as a tipoff
>that the speaker is expressing his/her own preference rather than an
>analysis of constitutional law.
>
[Susan Batte wrote:]
With all due deference to Larry - again, the book you quote this
passage from has a copyright date of 1988, yet the Supreme Court
doesn't seem closer to validating a program. Perhaps we should just
stick to repeating our sides of the issue over and over. It is
evident neither side will change the other's mind, but there might be
some people out there who haven't made up their mind and would benefit
from our position statements and even our reasoning (aka policies).
None of the cases you list above overturns the bulk of cases the set the
no-aid-to-religion doctrine. Nyquist, which many scholars point to as still
the current controlling case in regards to public monies being used to pay
for tuition, in part, or in total to private religious schools of the k-12
variety, has not been overturned.
===============================================================
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|In article <3843bbe...@news.pilot.infi.net>,
>:| jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> (NOTE: Panther and Tubmanin are one and the same person.)
>:|>
>:|> >:|MK. Provenance deleted...
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|>...> MK. Are we going to argue the definition of "was"? I'm not
>:|> >:|>...> interested.
>:|> >:|>...>
>:|> >:|>...> MK. Discussion deleted (Readersd may backtrack)...
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Deleted because he got caught again making false claims.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|Readers may backtrack to assess the accuracy of that.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|>...> MK. Still not interested.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Truth has never interested this fool. LOL
>:|>
>:|MK. Jalison, get a life!
>:|>
LOL!!!!!!
What's the matter, you don't like being exposed?
You got caught misrepresenting what another said. You have been
misrepresenting what that person said for at least two years.
I suppose you figured the odds were that no one would actually check.
Well, that is what I do. I research material, historical, legal, etc.,
that is connected to the church/state issues.
This isn't the first time you have been exposed posting false or at best
very questionable material. Nor is it the first time I exposed you at it.
If your case is so good why do you need to misrepresent things?
panther
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> panther wrote:
>
>...> MK. Discussion deleted (Readers may backtrack)...
>
>...> Truth has never interested this fool. LOL
>
>...>MK. Jalison, get a life!
>
> LOL!!!!!!
>
> What's the matter, you don't like being exposed?
>
> You got caught misrepresenting what another said. You have been
> misrepresenting what that person said for at least two years.
>
> I suppose you figured the odds were that no one would actually check.
>
> Well, that is what I do. I research material, historical, legal,
etc.,
> that is connected to the church/state issues.
>
pays for it.
>
> This isn't the first time you have been exposed posting false or at
> best very questionable material. Nor is it the first time I exposed
> you at it.
>
> If your case is so good why do you need to misrepresent things?
>
research interesting, his legal reasoning bogus, and and his
interpersonal style repulsive. If jalison finds so little to value in
MK.'s arguments, one might wonder why he spends so much time on them.
jalison was a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church
and State, a bunch of paid NEA shills. He tried to deny it. OK. Move
on. His arguments succeed or fail independent of their motivation.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
> mental health problem"...p. 281
> >
> [Roland Meighan, "Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and Some
> of its Implications", Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.
> >
> www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
> >
> www.hslda.org (Very useful links, for prospective homeschoolers)
> >
> www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment on
> school. Please read this.)
> >
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537273125&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537272956&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
C. Smith
<igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3843bbe...@news.pilot.infi.net>,
> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >
> > panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > (NOTE: Panther and Tubmanin are one and the same person.)
> >
> > >:|MK. Provenance deleted...
> > >:|>
> > >:|>...> MK. Are we going to argue the definition of "was"? I'm not
> > >:|>...> interested.
> > >:|>...>
> > >:|>...> MK. Discussion deleted (Readersd may backtrack)...
> > >:|>
> > >:|> Deleted because he got caught again making false claims.
> > >:|>
> > >:|Readers may backtrack to assess the accuracy of that.
> > >:|>
> > >:|>...> MK. Still not interested.
> > >:|>
> > >:|> Truth has never interested this fool. LOL
> >
> MK. Jalison, get a life!
During the Nixon adminstration, this was refered to as a "non-denial
denial"... :-)
C. Smith
C. Smith
<igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
I can understand your insistence/urgency to move on. Whatever you may
think of Mr. Allison, he unequivocally proved that the assertion that
you've just made yet again is, AT BEST, a complete misrepresentation of
what this fellow Lieberman said in the book YOU cite.
Having been caught in the act, I can see why you wish to move on as
quickly as possible.
C. Smith
C. Smith
> In article <3847b537...@news.pilot.infi.net>,
> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> > panther wrote:
> >
> >...> MK. Discussion deleted (Readers may backtrack)...
> >
> >...> Truth has never interested this fool. LOL
> >
> >...>MK. Jalison, get a life!
> >
> > LOL!!!!!!
> >
> > What's the matter, you don't like being exposed?
> >
> > You got caught misrepresenting what another said. You have been
> > misrepresenting what that person said for at least two years.
> >
> > I suppose you figured the odds were that no one would actually check.
> >
> > Well, that is what I do. I research material, historical, legal,
> etc.,
> > that is connected to the church/state issues.
> >
> MK. Professionally? Since I won't believe the answer, I won't ask who
> pays for it.
Well, I have to give MK credit here. At least he admits his mind is
closed...
C. Smith
Bob LeChevalier
>jalison was a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church
>and State, a bunch of paid NEA shills.
You have been repeatedly called on this. Now jalison has posted the quote
from the source you cite for this "paid NEA shills" bit, showing that there
was no claim (much less supporting evidence) that the NEA paid for
anything, or even clearly saying that there was a relationship between the
NEA and the other group.
All I see there is a weak claim that the NEA has an "influence" on the
organization, not even saying what that "influence" might be. I am sure
that you feel that NEA had an influence on you too, given your reported
history. Does this mean that you are or were a "paid NEA shill"?
lojbab
----
lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.
panther
loj...@lojban.org (Bob LeChevalier) wrote:
> panther wrote:
>
> >jalison was a member of Americans United for the Separation of
Church
> >and State, a bunch of paid NEA shills.
>
> You have been repeatedly called on this. Now jalison has posted the
quote
> from the source you cite for this "paid NEA shills" bit, showing that
there
> was no claim (much less supporting evidence) that the NEA paid for
> anything, or even clearly saying that there was a relationship
between the
> NEA and the other group.
>
> jalison wrote:
>
>
> >That is it, readers, that is the entire reference to AUSC&S, the only
> >mention of that and other like organizations in the entire book.
> >
> >There is no mention of money, there are no facts or figures offered,
just
> >that one unsubstantiated mention of AUSC&S, and this is the
"evidence", the
> >"facts", the "proof" that MK (AKA: tubmanin, Panther) has touted for
at
> >least two years. Well, I know now why he was careful never to give
any
> >details, to claim a memory not that good, to never quote the man,
LOL
>
> organization, not even saying what that "influence" might be. I am
sure
> that you feel that NEA had an influence on you too, given your
reported
> history. Does this mean that you are or were a "paid NEA shill"?
>
I read "The Teacher Unions", and my copy's been in storage since I
moved. Either I interpreted Professor Lieberman's statement, making
"influence" into "financial support", and incorrectly remembered what
he'd written or Lieberman asserts financial support elsewhere, and I
misattribute the source. Thanks also to Bob LeChavalier for the quote
from jalison's post, since I seldom read jalison's multi-volume posts
anymore, and would have missed the correction. (b) I wish someone would
pay me to do this. I suppose then I'd be an anti-shill. Some legislator
offered me a job, but I turned it down, since I didn't feel that I
could then testify on education bills.
>
"So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign of
mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized
Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications", Educational
Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.]
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
>
www.hslda.org (Very useful links, for prospective homeschoolers)
>
www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment on
school. Please read this.)
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537273125&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
>
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537272956&search=thread&CONTEXT=9432206
36.1544683525&HIT_CONTEXT=943220636.1544683525&hitnum=270
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|In article <3853d3d7....@nnrp-corp.news.cais.net>,
>:| loj...@lojban.org (Bob LeChevalier) wrote:
>:|> panther wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >jalison was a member of Americans United for the Separation of
>:|Church
>:|> >and State, a bunch of paid NEA shills.
>:|>
>:|> You have been repeatedly called on this. Now jalison has posted the
>:|quote
>:|> from the source you cite for this "paid NEA shills" bit, showing that
>:|there
>:|> was no claim (much less supporting evidence) that the NEA paid for
>:|> anything, or even clearly saying that there was a relationship
>:|between the
>:|> NEA and the other group.
>:|>
>:|> jalison wrote:
>:|>
>:|MK. Discussion deleted...
>:|>
>:|> >That is it, readers, that is the entire reference to AUSC&S, the only
>:|> >mention of that and other like organizations in the entire book.
>:|> >
>:|> >There is no mention of money, there are no facts or figures offered,
>:|just
>:|> >that one unsubstantiated mention of AUSC&S, and this is the
>:|"evidence", the
>:|> >"facts", the "proof" that MK (AKA: tubmanin, Panther) has touted for
>:|at
>:|> >least two years. Well, I know now why he was careful never to give
>:|any
>:|> >details, to claim a memory not that good, to never quote the man,
>:|LOL
>:|>
>:|> All I see there is a weak claim that the NEA has an "influence" on the
>:|> organization, not even saying what that "influence" might be. I am
>:|sure
>:|> that you feel that NEA had an influence on you too, given your
>:|reported
>:|> history. Does this mean that you are or were a "paid NEA shill"?
>:|>
>:|MK. (a) Thanks to jalison for the correction. It's been some time since
>:|I read "The Teacher Unions", and my copy's been in storage since I
>:|moved.
Two years you have ben making such claims. You begin making such claims the
same year the book was published.
>:| Either I interpreted Professor Lieberman's statement, making
>:|"influence" into "financial support", and incorrectly remembered what
>:|he'd written or Lieberman asserts financial support elsewhere,
There is only one mention of AUSC&S in the entire book:
His comments:
===============================================================
. Nor does it convey their
influence at the national level, or among private organizations, such as
the National PTA, people for the American Way, and Americans United for
Separation of Church and State."
THE TEACHERS UNIONS, Myron Lieberman. The Free Press, N.Y., London,
Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, (1997) pp 105.
=======================================================================
>:|and I
>:|misattribute the source. Thanks also to Bob LeChavalier for the quote
>:|from jalison's post, since I seldom read jalison's multi-volume posts
>:|anymore, and would have missed the correction.
LOL, I don't blame you, you do take a beating at times from them. Plus you
have admitted that truth is not your concern.
>:|(b) I wish someone would
>:|pay me to do this.
Oh well, I don't get paid either.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|In article <3847b537...@news.pilot.infi.net>,
>:| jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> panther wrote:
>:|>
>:|>...> MK. Discussion deleted (Readers may backtrack)...
>:|>
>:|>...> Truth has never interested this fool. LOL
>:|>
>:|>...>MK. Jalison, get a life!
>:|>
>:|> LOL!!!!!!
>:|>
>:|> What's the matter, you don't like being exposed?
>:|>
>:|> You got caught misrepresenting what another said. You have been
>:|> misrepresenting what that person said for at least two years.
>:|>
>:|> I suppose you figured the odds were that no one would actually check.
>:|>
>:|> Well, that is what I do. I research material, historical, legal,
>:|etc.,
>:|> that is connected to the church/state issues.
>:|>
>:|MK. Professionally? Since I won't believe the answer, I won't ask who
>:|pays for it.
LOL, well for anyone who ever had any doubts, you have just admitted you do
not have an open mind, nor are you concerned by truth.
No one pays for it fool. When the books I am working on are finished,
perhaps I will make a buck or two, to borrow a comment from a current TV
campaign.
>:|>
>:|> This isn't the first time you have been exposed posting false or at
>:|> best very questionable material. Nor is it the first time I exposed
>:|> you at it.
>:|>
>:|> If your case is so good why do you need to misrepresent things?
>:|>
>:|MK. I don't.
Sure you do, because you do misrepresent things.
>:| I consider jalison's legal research useful,
Good because it very frequently has to correct you.
>:|his historical
>:|research interesting,
Great, real progress, huh? :o)
>:| his legal reasoning bogus,
But of course, because it corrects your comments in the legal area, an area
you are out of your league in.
Also don't forget, I have provided the legal reasoning and arguments of a
lawyer.
You ignored those as well, but alas, you claim to have asked lawyers
friends of yours concerning how the Supreme Court selected cases and then
claimed that the Supreme Courts refusal to take the Wis, School voucher
cases was proof that vouchers were constitutional, because, so you say your
lawyer friends told you, the Supreme court has to accept cases that would
be unconstitutional. (no such rules exists and no such practice exists) ,
>:|and and his
>:|interpersonal style repulsive.
Good, now that is progress.
>:|If jalison finds so little to value in
>:|MK.'s arguments, one might wonder why he spends so much time on them.
I find little value in discussions, arguments, etc., that are based on
misrepresentation and or incorrect information.
I spend time correcting the facts.
>:|jalison was a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church
>:|and State,
LOL, you back to this again?
>:|a bunch of paid NEA shills.
Your evidence?
The evidence you have tried to pass off for two years doesn't work for you.
You are misrepresenting what that man said.
His comments:
===============================================================
. Nor does it convey their
influence at the national level, or among private organizations, such as
the National PTA, people for the American Way, and Americans United for
Separation of Church and State."
THE TEACHERS UNIONS, Myron Lieberman. The Free Press, N.Y., London,
Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, (1997) pp 105.
=======================================================================
>:|He tried to deny it. OK.
LOL, I suppose in your mind you really believe that, but then you have
acknowledged you are not concerned with truth. Your paranoia is far more
important to you.
>:|Move
>:|on.
Move on? Oh yes, lets get beyond you were caught seriously misrepresenting
your evidence.
>:|His arguments succeed or fail independent of their motivation.
You should bear that in mind, and your argument in this matter failed
miserably. But you know what, you will still continue to make those same
claims over and over again. You will continue to offer the same evidence
and continue to misrepresent it.
Whose credibility really has taken a serious hit?
panther
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> panther wrote:
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> >:|MK. (a) Thanks to jalison for the correction. It's been some time
since
> >:|I read "The Teacher Unions", and my copy's been in storage since I
> >:|moved.
>
> Two years you have ben making such claims. You begin making such
> claims the same year the book was published.
>
> >:| Either I interpreted Professor Lieberman's statement, making
> >:|"influence" into "financial support", and incorrectly remembered
what
> >:|he'd written or Lieberman asserts financial support elsewhere,
>
> There is only one mention of AUSC&S in the entire book:
>
> His comments:
> ===============================================================
> influence at the national level, or among private organizations, such
as
> the National PTA, people for the American Way, and Americans United
for
> Separation of Church and State."
> THE TEACHERS UNIONS, Myron Lieberman. The Free Press, N.Y., London,
> Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, (1997) pp 105.
>
=======================================================================
>
> >:|misattribute the source. Thanks also to Bob LeChavalier for the
quote
> >:|from jalison's post, since I seldom read jalison's multi-volume
posts
> >:|anymore, and would have missed the correction.
>
> LOL, I don't blame you, you do take a beating at times from them.
>
add nothing to the discussion. Your compulsively hostile style of
argumentation (the silly discussion of whether legal reasoning is
reasoning by analogy) distracts from any real issues. You make a
valuable contribution in the time spent posting court rulings and
legislation, but I've seen much of it in your earlier posts, and I
don't regard the Constitutional issue as important to the question of
expanding parents' and students' options (Tuition tax-credits pass. So
also would subsidized homeschool, with no restriction as to means, I
suppose).
>
> Plus you have admitted that truth is not your concern.
>
interpretation.
>
> >:|(b) I wish someone would
> >:|pay me to do this.
>
> Oh well, I don't get paid either.
>
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.