Sheesh Jason, it is ok for you to post a humorous post but it is not ok for Rich to do so? He even ended his with "LOL."
As posted earlier, Teacher Unions are extremely powerful and they back the Liberals 100%.
I just resigned a job as Finance Director for a Head Start Program. We spent over $2,000,000 to baby sit 120 kids for the year. That is nearly $17,000.00 a year, per kid, just so mom can stay home and watch The View and Oprah. All studies show that a Head Start trained child, by second grade, is no further along than a child who attended no pre school. Talk about a waste of Billions of dollars annually!
By the way, I love right wing talk radio. It has entertainment value and some truth to it. It sure beats listening to Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews or Cooper Anderson. Funny thing, anyone that criticizes right wing talk radio, when I ask if they have ever actually sat down and listened to a complete show from Rush, Laura, Sean or Glenn, they say "No, I don't have to!" Talk about ignorance. They get their opinion of Right Wing Talk Radio from The View, CNN, MSNBC, Media Matters, MoveOn.org and Nancy Pelosi.
Those of us from a conservative point of view came to a consensus in November to stop talking to the liberals here.
As usual with you guys, what you say you're going to do and what you actually do are very different things...
Did your decision to "stop talking to liberals" also include not sending private messages, because one of your esteemed colleagues felt the need to send me a PM a few weeks ago reminding me of what he thinks about my politics.
I guess he didn't have the discipline to "stop talking to liberals" but didn't want his friends to think he wasn't cool like the rest of you guy, huh? I think you guys should probably check references in the future before letting just anyone into your club... :roll:
Oh, and if someone decides to stop posting in all the forums just because they can't handle people having differing political viewpoints in the POLITICAL forum, perhaps it's time they put on their big boy pants and suck it up...
If you can dish it out, you damn well better be able to take it. Whether you like it or not, people have a right to dissenting opinions...
I realize that Glenn Beck tries to get a restraining order against other celebrities because they mock him, but i guess that's why we shouldn't be acting like Glenn Beck when people disagree with us...
Everyone take note. All I said was "liberals". I never said who....and they're tripping over themselves to self identify and be offended. Furthermore, in their sprint to self identify and be offended, they never denied their practice of engaging in ad hominem personal attacks, even when they aren't being spoken to. In the rest of the world, an ad hominem attack means you've instantly lost the debate.
Furthermore, in their sprint to self identify and be offended
No need to self identify Tim...Vikram and other left-wing lunatics have already been called out by the radicals on other threads. He is definitely showing his true left-wing agenda in this thread! :roll:
I think everyone that is reading this can see who is hijacking, calling names, picking fights, etc. and who is typing constructive posts. With that I'll let you guys trade PMs and run your 5th grade clique. We'll continue embarrassing you with facts and logic. I understand you guys have a hard time with those things.
I never said who....and they're tripping over themselves to self identify and be offended.
There you go again...you say one thing ("I'm not going to respond anymore to those I consider Liberals") and then you do completely the opposite (you respond to my posts despite the fact that you consider me Liberal)...
That's the fundamental issue on this forum. There are some here who berate, mock and condemn those who have differing political beliefs; and there are those who berate, mock and condemn those who are hypocritical and inconsistent, regardless of their political beliefs.
I'm in the second category. While I have nothing against any political beliefs (mine clearly run the gamut from socialist to libertarian), I DO have an issue with those who pretend that they are morally and ideologically superior to others, but then prove to be just as bad as those they abhor.
People who have had foreclosures shouldn't be preaching against welfare (a foreclosure is no different than welfare, except that you're sticking the financial burden of your failures to one entity as opposed to many).
People who have admitted to using Medicare and VA benefits shouldn't be preaching against government health care.
People who like to insult others for not upholding the Constitution who then publicly call for the assassination of those who legally take advantage of their first amendment rights in a way he doesn't like.
People who claim to be for limited government and then preach for more legislation when it comes to things they find morally wrong (gay marriage, drugs, etc).
People who like to preach morality based on religion, but then clearly pick and chooses which aspects of biblical morality is important and which aren't.
I could go on and on, but the point is, if you're going to spend time spewing hypocrisy and inconsistency, you shouldn't be surprised when people who are smarter than you call you on it.
And again, if you can't take it, maybe the political threads aren't the place for you...
And if "liberalism" is such a great political philosophy, why do they get so offended by being called "liberal", or bend over backwards in denying it (Dan Blather comes to mind).
TC
This was one thing I really respected about Eddie Ziv. He's not on here much anymore but we banter back and forth almost daily on Facebook. One of his first posts he came out and said he was very liberal. He didn't try to hide behind "libertarian" (a socialist libertarian....that's a new one). I liked that and respected him for it. We disagreed a lot of the time but I knew I could trust my disagreements with him because he wasn't hiding anything and wasn't ashamed of his position. He understood that the term "liberal" wasn't an attack in an of itself and never tried to pretend he didn't understand that in order to twist it into an attack so he had an excuse to make a "retaliatory" personal attack. It's a political ideology, the same as "conservative".
Tim
P.S. I wonder if any more liberals will edit this post to make it look like I was talking to them too? I underestimated how much getting ignored bugs them. :lol:
There you go again Tim...that's the third post in two hours you addressed to the "Liberals" here who you claimed you weren't responding to anymore...
Give it up...your "beliefs" are more like New Year's Resolutions...you try really, really hard to keep them, but before you know it, it's January 3rd, and they're out the window...
Tom,
I meant socialist libertarian, not social libertarian. I tend to agree with you and think pot, along with many things, is something that should fall under a state's rights issue (and no - no interstate commerce clause nonsense). However, I don't believe the extremist pro-pot views such as the abuse of pot has never killed anyone. There was recently another pot DUI locally, but that's another argument.
I'm very familiar with the term Classical Liberal and was explaining it to my sister over the holidays. It came up in a discussion of why Mark Levin tends to use the word "statist". He, being a lawyer, would be more sensitive to language not popularly used for quite some time.
Tim
P.S. Tom, watch them think I was talking to them again. It's like that groundhog game at the fair where the heads keep popping up and you have to keep bopping them to make them go down.
I meant socialist libertarian, not social libertarian.
Yes Tom, he was referring to me, but he can't come out and say it directly, because then he wouldn't be using the little loophole he thinks he's created for himself whereby if it doesn't use my name directly, he can convince himself (or maybe he's trying to convince others) that he's not talking to me.
My 4-year-old nephew does the exact same thing...the difference being he'll grow out of it...
However, I don't believe the extremist pro-pot views such as the abuse of pot has never killed anyone.
I'm quite certain trans-fats are much more deadly than pot, though I don't generally hear Conservatives arguing that food-stuff should be more regulated...though perhaps the fat ones should for their own well-being...
As someone who stays away from drugs and trans-fats, I personally don't think any of them should be banned either at a state or Federal level...but I guess that's just the Communist in me arguing for less government intervention...
I think many can agree here that the education system is broken. I would love to see a conversation like this find other points of agreement and perhaps shed light on what exactly the disagreements are.
So what exactly is broken? Is it the curriculum? Is the teachers? Is the inability to choose schools? Why do private schools tend to be better than public schools
I have many opinions about the system not many of them are good, but perhaps understanding the problem better will help in considering solutions.
I enjoy a good discussion and consider myself conservative. That being said generally I avoid these discussions because they quickly become polarized or some choose to ignore your input. I consider myself teachable and like to hear out a good line of reasoning.
So what exactly is broken? Is it the curriculum? Is the teachers? Is the inability to choose schools? Why do private schools tend to be better than public schools
I still contend there are three main problems (see my longer post on the previous page):
1. The curriculum;
2. The funding to ensure equal access;
3. The lack of social and parental support for education.
All are very distinct, but without figuring out how to solve for all three, I don't think we can fully solve the problem...
So what exactly is broken? Is it the curriculum? Is the teachers? Is the inability to choose schools? Why do private schools tend to be better than public schools?
Your answers lie within the final question you posed.
What are the fundamental differences between private and public schools? I can think of four.
1. Unions
2. Government Ownership
3. Religion
4. Discipline
Private schools don't have the luxury to reward poor performance so they have to make their students perform well so they don't close down.
Scott, I would contend that there is one other issue at least. What is the reason for education? Perhaps this falls under curriculum. I often ask why we have the particular curriculum we have? It is seemingly not for helping kids find jobs. Is the assumption that all kids want to go to college? That seems an unreasonable assumption. Are there political reasons? We can say that politics should be taken out of the argument, but if politics is built into the system how do you avoid it?
A basic question about funding is what to fund. Do we continue to fund public education when it show such poor results? Do we fix the public system? Do we allow people the choice to attend public or private schools? Do we do away with public schools and fund private schools?
I think the lack of parental involvement partly stems from a system that does little to educate their children. I think average Americans want their children to succeed. They just see little value in the public schools and many can not afford private schools.
I contend that some don't want to change the existing system of public education because it gives an advantage to their children. Very few politicians have to worry about what average Americans go through. They can usually afford to make better choices for their families.
Sorry...this may ruffle some feathers. I know that correlation does not prove causation, but many that attend private schools IN OUR COUNTRY are wealthy and come from a nice stable household with parents that care. I am not saying this doesn't exist in the public school system too, but it is far more prevalent in the private school system.
Having wealthy parents that care and can afford to keep you away from the rif-raff and the kids that accept mediocrity is a big deal.
I know that correlation does not prove causation, but many that attend private schools IN OUR COUNTRY are wealthy and come from a nice stable household with parents that care. I am not saying this doesn't exist in the public school system too, but it is far more prevalent in the private school system.
Having wealthy parents that care and can afford to keep you away from the rif-raff and the kids that accept mediocrity is a big deal.
I have a feeling Vikram would support this point as well. While some Indian schools are now some of the best in the world (from what I have heard/seen), for many years well-off Indian families would routinely send their kids around the world to good schools; in my experience, those students excelled far beyond the typical American college graduate.
Again, no proof of causation and just empirical evidence, but it's all I have... :)
Everyone take note. All I said was "liberals". I never said who....and they're tripping over themselves to self identify and be offended.
There you go again breaking your own rule of not responding to those you consider to be liberals... :roll:
Again, that's the problem with you guys...you have this bad habit of saying one thing and then doing another...and then you wonder why everyone thinks you're hypocrites...
Another issue in my mind is the lack of an accurate means to measure the success of a school.
If you look at the core idea behind No Child Left Behind, it's basically "if a school does well it will be rewarded, if it does poorly it will be penalized". That's not really any different than what the free market would do by itself with an all private system as has been suggested by a few of the folks. ie. schools with great records would be greatly in demand, and be able to increase their prices, while poor schools would not.
But how are we evaluating the success or failure of these schools? Even ignoring the cases of tampering, the standardized tests seem to be doing a very poor job of this. A student could coast all year, then cram for the tests, and this would indicate "success". Worse, it seems that the curriculums are gradually being more and more geared towards demonstrating education (ie performing well on standardized tests) than actually educating. One symptom we are seeing of this is how non standardized test subjects such as art and music are getting marginalized.