Al Gore's Private Jet

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
motion picture yet.

Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.


Does Gore take a different position in the film than he has elsewhere when
speaking on the issue?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

So, if you agree that those things shouldn't be done, are you
proposing that they be curtailed?


They are being curtailed.

Larry Dighera wrote:

I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
country. Do you disagree?

Larry c'mon man! get real... you are going off the deep end. If you
are proposing that then how about just eliminate educational taxes
(which are by far largest part of anyone's tax bill) and let people
keep that money to spend on tutors or home schooling?

Sheesh... What is it with you? If government can't do it then it can't
be done???

On 6 Apr 2007 13:31:03 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in om:

On Apr 6, 12:54 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:16:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
t:


But it cost more.

Was it significantly more? Can you quantify your assertion?

It was way more expensive.

Are you suggesting that the cost of a coach ticket today is about half
of what it might have been under federal regulation? More? Less?

I don't ever remember families taking vacations by air.

Our family did several vacations (coast to coast, and international)
by air transport during the '50s.

It was mostly just business flyers.

Perhaps that wasn't a bad thing.

Since there can
be a wide variety of prices on a given flight even today it would be
hard to quantify. However, just imagine SouthWest no longer in
business (since they only compete on price) and you had to fly United
or American every flight. There were (and could not be ) any discount
airlines under regulation.


Personally, I don't have a problem with paying for comfort and good
service. Today an airline passenger has to pay five to ten times
coach fare to get decent service and comfort.

Those who fill the skies with unnecessary discount flights might
better take the train. Then there'd be enough rail passengers to make
AMTRAK solvent, hopefully, and there'd be impetus to improve train
service and equipment. Just a thought.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:37:52 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

I disagree. If sufficient government funding were provided to reduce
class size to one teacher per student, there would be a very
significant change in the quality of student achievement in this
country. Do you disagree?


I disagree.


Why?

Jose wrote:

This statement presumes that public education produces stupidity.

That is precisely what I am "presuming".

While
I have my quarrels with public education, what it does, and how it does
that, I would disagree with your implicit assertion that it produces
stupidity.


Well I'm glad you are happy with it Jose. Its certainly the envy of
the world [not].

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Personally, I don't have a problem with paying for comfort and good
service. Today an airline passenger has to pay five to ten times
coach fare to get decent service and comfort.


So what's the problem then? Comfort and good service is available for those
willing to pay premium prices, and cheap fares are available for those that
just want to get there.



Those who fill the skies with unnecessary discount flights might
better take the train. Then there'd be enough rail passengers to make
AMTRAK solvent, hopefully, and there'd be impetus to improve train
service and equipment. Just a thought.


Gee, there's a great example of government run transportation.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:40:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

So you have no compunction about your judging former Vice President
Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' motion picture to be "propaganda"
without benefit of having viewed it?

Do you permit others to do your thinking for you, or are you just
prejudiced?


Nobody does my thinking for me, nor am I prejudiced. I've heard Gore's
message on the subject many times.


So you are under the (mis)impression that Gore's movie only offers his
message, nothing else like empirical evidence?

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:44:29 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :


The real problem wasn't prayer (or the lack of it) it was the
year by year increased meddling by the federal government into
something they have no business meddling in... education.


Oh, you mean like in the '60s when President Kennedy instituted a
national program of physical fitness for students?

Today the government is funding a half billion dollars over five years
for research into the cause of childhood obesity while only 25% of
school children attend physical education classes.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:46:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.net:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

It's apparent that you haven't viewed former Vice President Gore's
motion picture yet.

Inform yourself before you make absurd assertions.


Does Gore take a different position in the film than he has elsewhere when
speaking on the issue?


It's not about Gore's position. It's about the overwhelming evidence
presented.