Moderator: Community Team
Japs wrote:Didnt see that one coming
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:Err, most of Obama's supporters are generally opposed to private school vouchers, so this is not equivalent to shitting on them. Not that criticizing Barack is wrong, or indicative of lack of support (I do it, and am more or less behind the guy)
What gives you the idea that these are Obama supporters, anyways, besides the whole "They're black," thing?
mpjh wrote:You guys on the right have got to find something better to do with your time. Trying to find something wrong with Obama is a fruitless exercise so long as you have no rational alternative to offer; or are you really going to stick with dipshit Palin?
mpjh wrote::D
Ron, the do away with the FAA and Social Security, Paul. I do like his anti-war stand. Wonder how he will do in Texas after the secession?
spurgistan wrote:Err, most of Obama's supporters are generally opposed to private school vouchers, so this is not equivalent to shitting on them. Not that criticizing Barack is wrong, or indicative of lack of support (I do it, and am more or less behind the guy)
What gives you the idea that these are Obama supporters, anyways, besides the whole "They're black," thing?
mpjh wrote:You guys on the right have got to find something better to do with your time. Trying to find something wrong with Obama is a fruitless exercise so long as you have no rational alternative to offer; or are you really going to stick with dipshit Palin?
spurgistan wrote:Err, most of Obama's supporters are generally opposed to private school vouchers, so this is not equivalent to shitting on them.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote: I still hold that most of Obama's supporters (not just the "elite" liberals that exist to be the right's boogeypeople) are against vouchers, in that they take away funds that would be spent on public education, hopefully making these schools better. I'm not sure if I'm in step with that (prep school kid here, though I hated it) but I am rather certain it is the will of the people who voted for Obama. And while that should not be the onus for all public policy
HapSmo19 wrote:It's the 'No Child Left' program.
spurgistan wrote:I may not have stuck all the way through the first time, caught the ending the second time. My bad.
And although I may have apparently unjustly accused somebody of making assumptions based on race, I still hold that most of Obama's supporters (not just the "elite" liberals that exist to be the right's boogeypeople) are against vouchers, in that they take away funds that would be spent on public education, hopefully making these schools better. I'm not sure if I'm in step with that (prep school kid here, though I hated it) but I am rather certain it is the will of the people who voted for Obama. And while that should not be the onus for all public policy (apparently, if all policy were derived from polls, Israel would be at war with Iran right now. Thank G_d somebody's got some sense)
a) It's hard to describe doing what the majority of people who elected you probably want you to do as "spitting on them
b) The mothers in the video are criticizing policies that they dislike. That's democracy. They might be wrong, they might be right, I may agree with them and still support Barack.
c) Sorry I thought that you assumed that all black people are Democrats.
captain.crazy wrote:... I suspect, like every other bureaucratic government agency, its bound to be bloated and mismanaged. Privatizing it would be the best thing that could happen.
PLAYER57832 wrote:captain.crazy wrote:... I suspect, like every other bureaucratic government agency, its bound to be bloated and mismanaged. Privatizing it would be the best thing that could happen.
Contrary to what conservatives like to assert, the truth is that the government is generally more efficient, not less than privatizing those jobs. Look at Cheney in Iraq, the IRS, even the child support collection agencies (a few of those have worked out OK, but only in the absence of public alternatives).
Think about it. Not only do those private agencies have to do the job, but they have to make a profit doing it! The real truth is that privatization helps a few folks who get to own those businesses. That "inefficiency" translates into better paid employees and almost always at a lower cost than privatization.
captain.crazy wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:captain.crazy wrote:... I suspect, like every other bureaucratic government agency, its bound to be bloated and mismanaged. Privatizing it would be the best thing that could happen.
Contrary to what conservatives like to assert, the truth is that the government is generally more efficient, not less than privatizing those jobs. Look at Cheney in Iraq, the IRS, even the child support collection agencies (a few of those have worked out OK, but only in the absence of public alternatives).
Think about it. Not only do those private agencies have to do the job, but they have to make a profit doing it! The real truth is that privatization helps a few folks who get to own those businesses. That "inefficiency" translates into better paid employees and almost always at a lower cost than privatization.
LOL!!!
I know that you didn't just use the IRS as an example of an efficient government agencies! Cheney in Iraq? are you kidding me? Ever driven by a state road crew? 7 guys leaning on shovels, one fat slob on a back hoe and 2 geezers telling the rest to stand around!
Japs wrote:spurgistan wrote: I still hold that most of Obama's supporters (not just the "elite" liberals that exist to be the right's boogeypeople) are against vouchers, in that they take away funds that would be spent on public education, hopefully making these schools better. I'm not sure if I'm in step with that (prep school kid here, though I hated it) but I am rather certain it is the will of the people who voted for Obama. And while that should not be the onus for all public policy
Vouchers would make the schools better than what they are now cause they would put competition in to the market and competition creates the need for your product to be better than your competitors. Bases on this with vouchers more schools will form and publics schools will have to step it up to keep up with the better levels of education.
Also better levels of education will keep us up with education in the rest of the modern world.
I bet only around 25-50% of Baraks voters even know about the idea for vouchers and those that do only know a very small portion about them which will tend to be bad. Thats what happens when you get told by other people. They leave out parts of the story and just tell you the worse to make it seem more interesting. (everyone does this not just liberals, not trying to attack anyone here)
InkL0sed wrote:You clearly have no idea of what Halliburton was doing in Iraq.
nesterdude wrote:Japs wrote:spurgistan wrote: I still hold that most of Obama's supporters (not just the "elite" liberals that exist to be the right's boogeypeople) are against vouchers, in that they take away funds that would be spent on public education, hopefully making these schools better. I'm not sure if I'm in step with that (prep school kid here, though I hated it) but I am rather certain it is the will of the people who voted for Obama. And while that should not be the onus for all public policy
Vouchers would make the schools better than what they are now cause they would put competition in to the market and competition creates the need for your product to be better than your competitors. Bases on this with vouchers more schools will form and publics schools will have to step it up to keep up with the better levels of education.
Also better levels of education will keep us up with education in the rest of the modern world.
I bet only around 25-50% of Baraks voters even know about the idea for vouchers and those that do only know a very small portion about them which will tend to be bad. Thats what happens when you get told by other people. They leave out parts of the story and just tell you the worse to make it seem more interesting. (everyone does this not just liberals, not trying to attack anyone here)
Actually vouchers corrupt the market.
When you have underachieving participants only gaining access to these elite schools because of legislation, then the curriculum has to adjust (read lower) itself to those youths.
It doesn't happen immediately, but it does happen.
Schools work through merit, and sufficient consequences for failure. Schools don't work on coddling, improper achievement and acquiescence.
It was a d bag program, and it's probably the only thing Obama has done right.
nesterdude wrote:Japs wrote:spurgistan wrote: I still hold that most of Obama's supporters (not just the "elite" liberals that exist to be the right's boogeypeople) are against vouchers, in that they take away funds that would be spent on public education, hopefully making these schools better. I'm not sure if I'm in step with that (prep school kid here, though I hated it) but I am rather certain it is the will of the people who voted for Obama. And while that should not be the onus for all public policy
Vouchers would make the schools better than what they are now cause they would put competition in to the market and competition creates the need for your product to be better than your competitors. Bases on this with vouchers more schools will form and publics schools will have to step it up to keep up with the better levels of education.
Also better levels of education will keep us up with education in the rest of the modern world.
I bet only around 25-50% of Baraks voters even know about the idea for vouchers and those that do only know a very small portion about them which will tend to be bad. Thats what happens when you get told by other people. They leave out parts of the story and just tell you the worse to make it seem more interesting. (everyone does this not just liberals, not trying to attack anyone here)
Actually vouchers corrupt the market.
When you have underachieving participants only gaining access to these elite schools because of legislation, then the curriculum has to adjust (read lower) itself to those youths.
It doesn't happen immediately, but it does happen.
Schools work through merit, and sufficient consequences for failure. Schools don't work on coddling, improper achievement and acquiescence.
It was a d bag program, and it's probably the only thing Obama has done right.
captain.crazy wrote:nesterdude wrote:Japs wrote:spurgistan wrote: I still hold that most of Obama's supporters (not just the "elite" liberals that exist to be the right's boogeypeople) are against vouchers, in that they take away funds that would be spent on public education, hopefully making these schools better. I'm not sure if I'm in step with that (prep school kid here, though I hated it) but I am rather certain it is the will of the people who voted for Obama. And while that should not be the onus for all public policy
Vouchers would make the schools better than what they are now cause they would put competition in to the market and competition creates the need for your product to be better than your competitors. Bases on this with vouchers more schools will form and publics schools will have to step it up to keep up with the better levels of education.
Also better levels of education will keep us up with education in the rest of the modern world.
I bet only around 25-50% of Baraks voters even know about the idea for vouchers and those that do only know a very small portion about them which will tend to be bad. Thats what happens when you get told by other people. They leave out parts of the story and just tell you the worse to make it seem more interesting. (everyone does this not just liberals, not trying to attack anyone here)
Actually vouchers corrupt the market.
When you have underachieving participants only gaining access to these elite schools because of legislation, then the curriculum has to adjust (read lower) itself to those youths.
It doesn't happen immediately, but it does happen.
Schools work through merit, and sufficient consequences for failure. Schools don't work on coddling, improper achievement and acquiescence.
It was a d bag program, and it's probably the only thing Obama has done right.
In Montessori, if you come into the class and f*ck around, you are not invited to come back. Your parents can waste their time trying to get you into another school. Maybe, since your kid is an underachieving loser, they will be happy in public school.
Also, in the Montessori program, you learn quite differently than you do in the public school system. You learn what you are interested in, and you generally generally do well. Plus, the program talked about in the video seemed to be quite successful. And for a lot cheaper than the shitty public school system. Just sayin... you have to actually look at the pilot programs before you can just say that "vouchers corrupt the market." If you are going to say something like that, show some data.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users