Oh come on. Put down your Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton playbook and come back to the real world.Originally Posted by BoulderDawg
Is very uneasy
Oh come on. Put down your Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton playbook and come back to the real world.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Is very uneasy
Thus proving my point. You have no clue how the Law of Supply and Demand works.
Here is what will happen in a nutshell; More private schools will open. The failing schools will lose students as more private schools open. The GOOD teachers in the failing schools will find jobs at the better schools. The FAILING teachers will either be outright fired, or relegated to the failing schools where so few students go the damage their incompetance causes will be minimized.
As it is now, the big problem is the NEA and the Teachers Union. They insure the bad teachers are not fired. They do this because they will lose numbers and dues, which equals political power for them.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams
Registered User
The position of teacher is no different from any other. You have about a quarter of the profession that is really good, about half that is average and a quarter that is not so good. All the vouchers in the world is not going to change that. The demand for quality education far exceeds the supply.....since you're an economist can you tell me what happens when demand exceeds supply?
Also, as I said, you are going to have your better schools. These are already established with long, long waiting list and high cost. Do you actually think your voucher is going to come anywhere close to paying for these top notch schools?
I see a situation where everybody and his brother who has a degree in education is going to open his/her own "private" school just to cash in on all of those government vouchers. That's a hell of a lot better than working for the county at 30K a year.
Also, since the conservative ideal is no regualtion of private business these schools will be pretty much able to make any claims they like concerning their quality of education.
I've done some substitute teaching in the past and have some ideas to improve education:
Teach the basics: Reading, writing, Math.
Cut class time to 3-4 hours. My experience is that in a average day from 8-3 a student is probably being taught less than 2 hours anyway. Make it official but also increase discilpine so that class time is quality class time. From my observation over 70% of the time in class is NOT instruction
Increase teachers to 2-3 per class
Finally, the ultimate responsibility lies with the parents. If you have a student who simply won't particpate and constantly disrupts class then go to see the parents and find out what is going on. My guess is that you will know what is going on in 30 seconds after entering the home.
Registered User
I'm confused. By paying into the school system, I AM subsidizing other peoples kids. By being allowed to put my money into a better school that my kid attends - how is THAT subsidizing me? It's MY money.
You've been brainwashed into thinking it is the governments right to take what they want from you for 'the common good' as opposed to a social contract where we put into the system, but expect accountability and results.
Registered User
With some minor edits...
Now here's 22 reasons to vote against Mr. Obama and for McCain/Palin.
1. Sen. Obama gives flowery speeches on change and hope. But he's part of one of the most corrupt political machines of all time. And instead of fighting and trying to reform the corrupt Chicago Cook County political machine, he used it to rise to power. When reformers tried to fight it, Mr. Obama refused to help them and actually was instrumental in defeating the reform movement. He preaches a new kind of politics but supports and uses one of the worst political machines in the U.S.
2. He led the battle in the Illinois legislature to assure that born-alive infants would not be treated as persons and would not be entitled to medical care. Instead, if Sen. Obama had his way, such babies born alive after a botched abortion would be left to die, thus legalizing what appears to be infanticide and murder.
3. When he first responded to Russia's invasion of Georgia, he said that aggression was wrong, but the U.S. would be in a better position if we set a good example. Thus he made it clear he was drawing a moral equivalence between Russia's aggression and the U.S.'s liberation of Iraq, which had violated 17 United Nations resolutions. This reaction alone, suggests not merely bad judgment but apparently no judgment at all. Then after giving it more thought, his second response was turning the matter over to the United Nations. That of course was a stupid idea as Russia has a veto in the Security Council.
4. He sat in the pews of the Trinity Church in Chicago, listening to a notorious racist, bigot and anti-American, Rev. Jeremiah "God **** America" Wright, without a peep of protest. He did not leave the church until Rev. Wright said Obama is just another politician who says what he has to say. And that move was dictated by political considerations, not any moral outrage. NOTE: RACIST LITERATURE WAS FOR SALE IN THE BACK OF THE CHURCH - OBAMA CLAIMS HE NEVER SAW IT - IN 20 YEARS.
5. He started his political career in a fund-raiser in the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist and anti-American. He still hasn't denounced him but says Mr. Ayers is now a member of the Chicago Democratic mainstream. He still maintains a friendly relationship with him, has served on a board with him, and has participated in speaking panels with him.
6. He refused to wear a flag on his lapel, claiming he viewed it as a symbol of false patriotism employed after 9/11. He started wearing the flag only when he was embarrassed into doing so under political pressure. At that time he suddenly started ending his speeches with the words "God Bless America."
7. He got an earmark appropriation from Congress for his wife's employer, the University of Chicago Medical Center. When questioned on the appearance of conflict of interest, he said there was nothing improper about that but he should have gone to his fellow Illinois Sen. **** Durban, to put the appropriation through. In other words, if there is an appearance of conflict of interest, you should hide it somehow instead of avoiding what creates such appearance. This is a pattern: saying one thing and doing the opposite. When he started to run for the presidency, he stopped putting in earmarks. As is his usual pattern, he started doing the right thing for election purposes only. So judge him by his record, not moves that are merely campaign calculation.
8. He favors increasing the capital gains tax, even though he admitted it will not raise tax revenue, but cut it instead. He justifies such an irrational move, out of what he calls a sense of fairness. That would mean less tax revenue, higher deficits and less incentive for saving, investment, capital formation, economic growth, and creation.
9. He called for negotiations without preconditions with the Ahmadinejad of Iran, Chavez of Venzuela, and Castro of Cuba. Even Senator Obama recognized the folly of this idea, so he backed off of it after an explosion of criticism. He thinks sweet talk solves all problems, and when a problem calls for something beyond sweet talk, he 's stumped. He speaks loudly and often, but carries a toothpick-size stick which he is afraid to use. Another example of Mr. Obama's naiveté was his comment that Iran is a small country not to be feared.
10. He opposed the surge, said it would fail, and even after it was almost universally acclaimed to be a success, he refuses to admit the surge succeeded. [IN AN INTERVIEW RECENTLY HE ADMITTED IT WORKED 'BETTER THAN ANYBODY'S WILDEST DREAMS - EXCEPT OF COURSE JOHN MCCAIN WHO TOOK A PRINCIPLED STAND FOR THE SURGE.]
11. He called for withdrawal from Iraq, in effect, calling for retreat and defeat, which would have turned over the Middle East and much of the world's oil supplies to terrorists and their supporters in Iran. [WETHER YOU AGREED WITH THE INVASION OR NOT - RETREAT COULD NEVER BE A VIABLE OPTION. NEITHER COULD ORWELLIAN 'FOREVER WAR.' MCCAIN OF ALL FOLKS OFFERED A SIMPLE OUT - VICTORY, THEN LEAVE]
12. He associated with and made a land deal with convicted felon, Tony Rezko, even knowing he was under serious investigation. He admitted this was what he called a boneheaded mistake. Mr. Obama seems incapable of judging his associates, as his close and friendly encounters with the hate-America and terrorist crowd suggests. Even an otherwise friendly biographer, said he is at home with the hate-America types.
13. He claims he will bring all sides together but he has never shown any signs or symptoms of bipartisanship. His record is that of a far-left liberal, the most liberal of any member of the U.S. Senate. He goes down the party line, and never reaches across the aisle.
14. He claims he will bring change to Washington, but picks a long-term Washington insider, Sen. Joe Biden, who has been in the Senate for decades, and is rated the third most liberal in the U.S. Senate. He claims he'll be the agent of change, but in his acceptance speech he catalogs the tired left-wing Democratic agenda, that has been regurgitated every four years for decades. He talks change but dishes up only the old liberal dishes, which have been rejected by voters many times from McGovern to Carter, and which have failed when implementation was attempted. If Mr. Obama wins the White House, he is likely to have a veto proof Congress, which mean all of his left-loony proposals would probably become law. Electoral history suggests Americans don't go for such unrestrained power. Beware of an Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate that would bring us radical liberalism in its worst form. [DON'T FORGET AFTER THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING, BIDEN DRAFTED A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT MAKES THE PATRIOT ACT SEEM POSITIVELY BENIGN.]
15. He says he wants to bring us energy independence but refuses to drill and extract our huge reserves, greater than those of Saudi Arabia. He wants us to check our tire pressure instead of drilling. Give me a break! He also advises everyone to tune-up their cars, even though most cars no longer need tune-ups.
16. He never sticks with a job. For example, when he became senator he started writing his book. Then within two years of becoming a senator, he started running for president. It is not surprising that he has no legislative accomplishments. This has been the pattern of his entire career. He never sticks with anything long enough to chalk up significant achievements. That's why when asked about his accomplishments, his supporters seem to be stumped. Dean Barnett, in an article in the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008), entitled "Would You Hire Barack Obama? The resume of a chronic underachiever," writes, "You'd have to conclude that Obama's failure to commit himself to any career sufficiently to excel at it suggests some unexplained restlessness." I'd say it suggests he's a dilitante, who flits from one project to another, but never stays long enough to deliver a satisfactory end product.
17. As talk show host Michael Medved has pointed out, the people vouching for him at the Democratic National Convention were mainly relatives, such as his wife and brother-in-law. There were not major figures vouching for him, because they could not vouch for a classic empty-suit. Even Hillary Clinton, in her convention endorsement speech, said Democrats must support him, but in no way vouched for his character or judgment. Contrast that with the people at the Republican National Convention who vouched for Sen. McCain - Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Sen. Fred Thompson. [I DON'T REALLY CARE FOR MEDVED - HE'S A NEOCON - BUT HE'S RIGHT ABOUT THIS.]
Registered User
18. To bolster his foreign policy credentials, he picked Sen. Joe Biden as vice president. Sen. Biden voted for the war in Iraq, which vote Sen. Obama views as the symbol of bad judgment. So even Sen. Obama admits Sen. Biden ha bad judgment. Sen. Biden also comes up with wacky ideas of his own such as splitting Iraq, a sovereign nation, into three parts for the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. He also voted against the first Gulf War, even after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. I'd think most would consider that the height of bad judgment. He opposed the surge. He opposed Reagan's build-up to fight international communism, so his bad record is long and unbroken. Biden has judgment bad enough to match that of Sen. Obama's.
19. He flip-flops on matters that suggest he has no principles except the old Chicago machine principle of do anything you have to do to get elected. He promised to take public financing, something that the great reformer and change artist claimed to be committed to. Then when he saw it was to his political advantage to stay with totally private contributions, as that would bring in more money, he went back on his promise and rejected public funding. He said that his wide array of contributors to his campaign made his approach into public financing, one of his more nonsensical pieces of logic. He think if he uses sufficient oratorical powers he can make two and two equal ten, or private financing equal public financing.
20. He constantly uses such expressions as, "I would be glad to debate my opponent on that issue anytime, anywhere." But that is just for oratorical effect. In practice, he refused Sen. McCain's offer of a town meeting every week to debate the issues. He is clearly afraid of unscripted sessions. If he is not smart enough to go off the teleprompter and script, he is not smart enough to be president.
When he participated in the Saddleback debate with Pastor Rick Warren, he demonstrated again he doesn't make sense when confronted with tough questions without the answers on a script. When asked when does life begin, he said that was above his pay-grade. If that question is above his pay grade so is the presidency of the United States.
21.He would like voters to view him as a man of great political courage, but he has a documented record of political cowardice. For example, when in the Illinois legislature, he voted "present" over 100 times and was well known for taking that route, of neither a yes or no vote. Present is a classic sitting on the fence and waiting to find out which way the wind will blow. As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008) has pointed out, " Has he shunned the easy path or broken with the conventional liberal pieties of those around him? Has he taken on his own party on a major issue? Nope."
22. Mr. Obama bases his campaign on his superior judgment, and that in turn is based on his speech against the war in Iraq. Of course, he never made a vote against the war, as at the time he was in the Illinois legislature, not the U.S. Senate. He gave the speech at an anti-war rally in the liberal Hyde Park section in Chicago. But votes are more important than speeches. And since he's been in the Senate, he's been wrong on every issue related to Iraq. These mistaken positions were summed up in an article by Emery in the Weekly Standard (Sept.1, 2008) entitled "Misfortunes of War: Success in Iraq Confounds the Democrats." It isn't easy to be wrong on every vote and pronouncement on Iraq, but don't underestimate Sen. Obama's ineptness in the foreign policy area. Mr. Emery writes: "He claimed that the Anbar Awakening took place as a result of Democrats' congressional victories, but it began in September 2006, two months before before the voting took place. He opposed not only the troop surge, but also the strategic changes that took place along with it, that did so much to enable the victory. He said the American military had noting to do with the Anbar Awakening or with the retreat of the Sadr militia, something denied by the Iraqi military and by the Iraqi Sunnis themselves. He was also wrong in his predictions that none of this would occur."
Sen. Obama not only has judgment bad enough to make him wrong on every foreign policy question, but he also has the knack of picking advisors and close associates who have a strong record of being wrong. For example, his choice for vice president, Sen. Biden, and one of the senators that accompanied him on his trip to Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, introduced a resolution in opposition to the buildup that was the surge that turned the tide in Iraq.
Sen. Obama's inexperience in foreign policy is perhaps his most dangerous deficiency. But don't underestimate his ability to wreck our economy, destroy the incentives for entrepreneurs to take risks and build jobs, and to wreck our health care delivery system.
FINALLY - LET'S NOT FORGET HIS 'COMMUNITY ACTIVISM' WAS WITH ACORN. DON'T KNOW ABOUT ACORN - GOOGLE IT - AND OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE INDICTMENTS AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF THIS GROUP.
Have fun!
Aaaargh, I'm a Pirate
It's now known as the Bulletin, NOT the Philadelphia Bulletin which went out of print in the 1980's. It's a right wing political publication. If you're gonna sling mud, please don't try to cover things up to make the illegitimate look legitimate. Thank you
I have no idea what WD is talking about.--Royal Dragon
The Emperor!!
Fixing education is easy. the problem is that teachers are not teaching in a step, by step manor and making sure the student masters each level before moving on.
When I was a kid, if you did not learn, you did not pass tests. If you did not pass test, you failed the class and had to repeat it either in summer school, or over the next year.
Fixing education is a matter of sticking to the SIMPLE old school step, by step progressive teaching methods and adhearing to the standards of each grade level before allowing a student to ascend to the next.
As for teacher quality, you won't get a massive amount of private schools who are just the same low quality as the public schools. The reason is that if the kids are not learning properly, those schools will not be able to draw students, and will go out of business.
ANY teacher teaching like they did in the 1950's can teach well. You don't need them to be the top 10% to educate children. What you need is a system that encourages the teachers to do what works, and they will produce results will or be unemployed.
Right now we have a system that either promotes gross ineptitude, or allows it to survive and thrive, so it has become the norm.
Last edited by RD'S Alias - 1A; 09-06-2008 at 06:30 PM.
Royal Dragon's secret Alias profile for trolling.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
NEW Spray On Solar collector - TWICE as efficient as current!
80% efficient Solar technology!
nano-technology-to-boost-solar-efficiency
Registered User
What, like all the 'Daily Kos' and 'Huffington Post' stuff on here? Oh yeah, the lefty sh!t is 'mainstream.' What a joke.
I notice the messenger gets attacked - but no defense provided against the statements themselves...
In any event, I read 'Philadelphia Bulletin' on the site, so exc-uuu-se me.
Registered User
There is big talk of the decline of education in the UK at the moment, and my personal opinion is that it needs to be tackled on many fronts - not just from one side
It’s well known (certainly in the UK) that teachers are generally the ones who didn’t do as well as their classmates at university. For example the top I.T. students get I.T. jobs paying fantastic wages - in line with their qualifications that they worked so hard to achieve.
IMHO teachers need a massive pay rise, as these are THE most important people in any country. They control the future, as they control the next generation(s). This isn’t just in an educational fashion, but also they are the people who make the difference in terms of discipline - and giving students a solid, well rounded, upbringing
If the profession had this pay rise then they would attract the high achievers to the roles that need filling.
I also think that schools need to promote sports and fitness more and have compulsory Phys. Ed. lessons, which I do believe is seen more by America than it is in the UK. America offers full scholarships to college to gifted athletes and gives rising sports stars something to aim for. Often something that allows them to rise out of humble beginnings and to really become someone that their potential demands of them
Again, IMO, discipline is something that should be embraced in schools - and the way to achieve results in anything is through hard work, and discipline (something that we, as martial artists, should be well aware of.)
One thing that has started to happen in the UK that could be potentially embraced by the US is the incentive scheme we have for key workers (Police, Firemen, Nurses, and Teachers etc.). Homebuilders who build big developments are required to give a percentage of the new homes to schemes that allow these people and young families to 'part buy - part rent' which means a lower value, and therefore cost, mortgage - and a heavily subsidized rent for the remaining portion of the property.
To truly build a great country you need a great education system that is also fun and exciting and keeps youngsters motivated. School should be about academic results but also 'life lessons'. Compulsory cookery classes for high school age students could promote healthy lifestyle and nutrition choices, and could help to reduce both the US and UK's obesity problems
In short, building a quality education system is not something that can be done overnight. It requires somebody with a lot of guts to go out on their own and say 'enough is enough' and finally clear up the mess that their predecessors have allowed to manifest.
From my very limited understanding of the American political system, I gather that presidents can only stay in for 2, 4 year terms?
A legacy can only truly be started in that time. Certainly not completed. It would take a real man of the people to start these changes. Not someone who just wants to be president, but someone who wants to be president to truly help people and change the nation for the better.
Again, from what I can gather, there are many good points to both candidates in this years' election. But I don’t know if either man is truly capable of making any real changes that are going to affect your everyday lives. When was the last time any Western country had a leader like that?
By the way, I would like to think that I am more ‘on the button’ when it comes to education and the reforms needed. I have an IQ of 142 and have achieved nothing academically with my life, as I feel I was probably too lazy, and possibly too disruptive at school. But I remember two specific school years where I worked my @ss of because of my teachers at the time. That wasn’t too long ago – I’m only 21.
I’m extremely passionate about this. I think I have had a lot of potential that I have let go to waste and as such I am attempting to do something about it, because now I’m older (and hopefully wiser) it genuinely upsets me. As such I aim to become a teacher and (hopefully) pass on a thirst for knowledge and achievement to any students that I have the privilege of teaching
Aaaargh, I'm a Pirate
The Lefty $hit is just as bad as the righty $hit. If you can show me this info from a reputable source, I'll dig into it and see if I can defend it. Heck, I may even come around to your point of view. Until I see this claims from a reputable source, it's justa bunch of nutjob B.S., IMO.
PS, the Philadelphia Bulletin was a reputable publication, what it has become is not. That was why I pointed that one out.
I have no idea what WD is talking about.--Royal Dragon
Registered User
I think there are vast differences in far left and far right. For the most part someone on the far right embraces power and a structered system of government. Whereas someone on the far left does not really embrace politics at all.
That is why there are really no lefty radicals in politics. Most of us are much too busy doing things to help people to worry about who the next prez will be. Most of the lefties I know of say "If you want to make the law then fine......We'll just ignore it and keep on doing our thing!
Registered User
What a giant, steaming load of bullshit that post was!
Aaaargh, I'm a Pirate
I have to agree on that one. While it's true that left wing nut jobs are nutty for a different reason than right wing nut jobs, they're still both nut jobs.What a giant, steaming load of bullshit that post was!
I have no idea what WD is talking about.--Royal Dragon
Registered User
No BS here......It's just the truth hitting you hard in the face. It makes you disoriented for a few minutes.
By the way I noticed where the conservative whining and crying is starting to pay off. MSNBC have gotten rid of Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews as head comentators for the rest of the campaign season.
Once again a case of that pesky old truth smacking you upside the head!
Posting Permissions
