Public education is a socialist monopoly

[Loren Pechtel]

And how much of this difference is due to special education? Actually trying to educate the disabled rather than simply throwing them away like we generally used to.

Oh please, stop the emotional misrepresentations. And I'm being polite. America NEVER threw children away.

View attachment 3064

I do agree there is far too much admin spending.

That doesn't change the fact that special ed is taking up more of the budget than it used to. This is partly because we are doing more for the handicapped, partly because of advancing medical science--many that are disabled these days would have been dead in times past.

 

[laughing dog]

And if he is racist cop or racist employer, his victims should just shun him?

Wouldn't that fall under illegal acts?

Not necessarily. Police had latitude on who they stop or arrest for minor infractions. A

If they are just expressing an opinion they only let the world know how stupid they are. Who wants a racist CEO? What decent police station wants to hire a racist cop? This isn't 1970 anymore.

FFS, are you under the illusion that racists always out themselves?

 

[Ford]

It is futile to try to have a discussion with Democrats.

It is an exercise in futility to have a discussion with someone who shows up at a forum like this one claiming to have all the answers and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot, part of a sinister plot, or otherwise ignorant of the very important points they imagine they're making.


You didn't show up here to have a discussion, Starman. In your mind, you've already got all the answers, and just came here to demonstrate your alleged mental superiority.


We get it. You think you're smarter than all of us combined. Nobody here could possibly disabuse you of this notion, because in order for that to happen, you'd have to have actually come here with an open mind and a desire to have an honest discussion.

You have neither, and won't be acquiring them anytime soon.


Carry on with your self-important pontificating if it makes you feel better. I, for one, will no longer bite at the bait you slowly toss behind your ego-driven craft in an attempt to hook an unsuspecting fish.

 

[NobleSavage]

Wouldn't that fall under illegal acts?

Not necessarily. Police had latitude on who they stop or arrest for minor infractions. A

If they are just expressing an opinion they only let the world know how stupid they are. Who wants a racist CEO? What decent police station wants to hire a racist cop? This isn't 1970 anymore.

FFS, are you under the illusion that racists always out themselves?

If they don't do anything illegal and they keep their mouth shut so as to not out themselves, what is left? You want to make sure they affirmatively like black people? Maybe check how many R&B mp3s they have on their iPad or let the NSA check their browsing history? And I'm sure you will come up with some exceptions as I am sure there are some, but my point was never that they don't exist; rather, how to best deal with the problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Not necessarily. Police had latitude on who they stop or arrest for minor infractions. A

If they are just expressing an opinion they only let the world know how stupid they are. Who wants a racist CEO? What decent police station wants to hire a racist cop? This isn't 1970 anymore.

FFS, are you under the illusion that racists always out themselves?

If they don't do anything illegal and they keep their mouth shut so as to not out themselves, what is left? You want to make sure they affirmatively like black people? Maybe check how many R&B mp3s they have on their iPad or let the NSA check their browsing history? And I'm sure you will come up with some exceptions as I am sure there are some, but my point was never that they don't exist; rather, how to best deal with the problem.

Ignoring them would seem the best way when you are not a victim of their racism. Ignoring them sends the tacit message their attitudes and actions are acceptable. Pointing them out and dealing directly with them is the appropriate response. It has nothing to do with making them like black people and everything to do with their making their behavior unacceptable.

 

[NobleSavage]

Not necessarily. Police had latitude on who they stop or arrest for minor infractions. A

If they are just expressing an opinion they only let the world know how stupid they are. Who wants a racist CEO? What decent police station wants to hire a racist cop? This isn't 1970 anymore.

FFS, are you under the illusion that racists always out themselves?

If they don't do anything illegal and they keep their mouth shut so as to not out themselves, what is left? You want to make sure they affirmatively like black people? Maybe check how many R&B mp3s they have on their iPad or let the NSA check their browsing history? And I'm sure you will come up with some exceptions as I am sure there are some, but my point was never that they don't exist; rather, how to best deal with the problem.

Ignoring them would seem the best way when you are not a victim of their racism.

Please give me an example of something concrete so I know what you are talking about.

ignoring them sends the tacit message their attitudes and actions are acceptable.

Not necessarily. If the KKK decided to march down town and no one showed up, they would be very disappointed. Give them media coverage and thongs of people being held back by police; yeah, that is what they are after. I don't like seeing biologists debate creationists because it gives them legitimacy. Just the same constant bitching about racism reinforces the belief of racists. (Yes, i realize that is a slop ass analogy... my muscle relaxers are kicking in and I'm fading).

Pointing them out and dealing directly with them is the appropriate response.

It can be, it depends on the issue at hand, but I'm going to go with popular culture is the most powerful force we have in dealing with the problem.

 

[Starman]

It is futile to try to have a discussion with Democrats. Here is an example why:

...and the Faux news hit pieces you use aren't biased.....

First, the video was NOT attributed anywhere to Fox News.
Second, here it is also on YouTube as posted by someone else:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

When Leftists have no way to rationally rebut points clearly made, as in this case, from the doofus himself in his own words, they attack the source.
This is the Fallacy of Ad Hominem. Try addressing the comments of the Democrat Doofus, not whoever may have broadcast the message.

[/B]I'm sensing another Starman BS move.

There you go again, attacking me, after attacking Fox News.

Isn't it amusing that Leftists everywhere have only ONE major news network to lambaste for not carrying Obama's water.
ABC, toes the liberal line.
CBS, toes the liberal line.
NBC "
CNN "
The New York Times ORIGINATES the extreme left-wing liberal line.
On and on goes the list of left-wing mouthpieces. IF ONLY... IF ONLY Fox News would toe the Liberal Line with all your other mouthpieces,
then we could have the *real* news, right?

How often do your liberal mouthpieces have conservative guests speak on the air?
Oh that's right, just about NEVER.

Your BS. Have a big plate of it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I’m not talking about your life Athena; I’m talking about strategies to combat racism.

And I am telling you they don't work.

The Peers of racists tend to be other racists. You think racist will pressure racist to stop being racists?

And if you find a pocket of racism where it's possible that all your peers are racist it’s most likely going to be poor, inbreed, folks, in a trailer park or a few old dudes, at a stale country club, who will die in a few years.

You don't think racism is passed down generationally? If a child is told 2+2=5 and never corrected that he will magically know the right answer if you just ignore him saying five every problem is put before him? And what of institutional, and structural racism. And how does one know what racism is if no one every explains it? How does one learn how to fight it or even that they should if they never see it acknowledged?

Actually it hasn't. That why so many white people need so desperately to be able to call black people racists with absolute legitimacy. It's a label they see as unimpeachable in its damnation of a person's character.

Why are black people so desperate to claim it’s impossible for them to be racist?

Racism is a system that keeps the group in power in power. Of course black people can be racist, provided black people are the group in power. But under white supremacy, while black people can be prejudice, discriminatory, hateful and absolute assholes to white people, they cannot exert systemic control of the life chances and outcomes of the white population writ large. And that is what racism does, and since it is systemic, much of what is racist will be named as normal even good and righteous.

The other reason I think it’s lost its power is because The US is so diverse now that the entire topic kind of becomes ridiculous. I saw a lot of eye rolling from non-black minorities when Ferguson erupted. I live in an area that mostly votes conservative Republican. I work out at the local gym and on any given day I’ll see Blacks, Asians, Indians, Arabs, Latinos, etc. My neighbor is from India, my dentist is from Iran, my massage therapist is from Russia, and there is a wonderful black family down the road. Oh, yeah, don’t forget about the lesbian couple that votes Republican (I know because I volunteer on local campaigns). And this is an area that would be traditionally called “white suburbia” in the middle of the Midwest. Then I log into TFT and someone says something brilliant like “Republicans are racist” or “blacks can’t be racist. “

As a political issue racism is mostly dead IMO (except for perhaps local elections.)

So you think that people are taking to the streets for no good reason? Tell me, do you think the majority of white folks polled by Gallup in the 60s who said black people already had equality and quite possibly privilege were right then?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think someone needs to go back to school to learn was (sic) "inversely proportional" means.

Also, what is the graph plotting regarding science/math results?

Did YOU ever misspeak, *Jimmy*?
Did you return to school after misspeaking, *Jimmy*?

Have you ever heard of Lysander Spooner, *Jimmy*?

Wrong Spooner. Lysander Spooner wasn't Bishop Spooner of Spoonerism fame.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As I pointed out (and you overlooked) sometimes people misuse the term to describe something they consider good as well.

There are lots of progressives gushing admiration over the social safety net of Scandinavia, calling it "socialism" when, in fact, socialism is supposed to only refer to collective (read: government) ownership of the means of production.

If those who like Socialism can't (or won't) keep it straight, can you really blame those who don't like socialism for making the exact same mistake?

Full Definition of SOCIALISM. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Would you please explain to me why it is so important to you that socialism only mean government ownership? Do you think government is some alien force from a far away planet imposed by intergalactic overlords upon us poor earthlings or can there be such a thing as government of the people, by the people and for the people?

Because if those who are smart enough to dislike socialism get lectured every time they mistakenly use it to refer to redistributionism, then those who have a blind faith in it should not make the same mistake they lecture others for.

 

[Starman]

What is interesting to me is that most public school teachers I know are very unhappy about the way education is run, yet they lend their support for more socialistic policies. If the government is doing a bad job, why do you want more of it?

Public school teachers send their own children to private schools at a higher rate than the general public.
Democrat leaders are massive hypocrites, as Jesse Jackson, the Clintons, the Gores, and the Obamas all sent their
own cossetted children to private Sidwell Friends School.



Incidentally, the SAT tests have been dumbed down twice, in an attempt to conceal public educations' failure despite increasingly outrageous expenditures.



When Bubba was governor of Arkansas, the public was up in arms over the miserable public school system there. Clinton ordered teachers to be tested, and learned that 50% of them failed a simple test at roughly the 8th grade level. Aghast, Clinton did a focus group and asked how many bad teachers had to be fired. 10% was their reply.
Clinton fired 10% and let the children suffer with the remaining incompetents.


More data showing negative correlation between spending and educational results.
Bad news for liberals. Far worse news for children they brainwash and abuse.
The correlation coefficient is -.381.

 

[arkirk]

Full Definition of SOCIALISM. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Would you please explain to me why it is so important to you that socialism only mean government ownership? Do you think government is some alien force from a far away planet imposed by intergalactic overlords upon us poor earthlings or can there be such a thing as government of the people, by the people and for the people?

Because if those who are smart enough to dislike socialism get lectured every time they mistakenly use it to refer to redistributionism, then those who have a blind faith in it should not make the same mistake they lecture others for.

What I think you are missing is that you are childishly guarding a hoard of marbles that really have no particular value. We are social animals and we will naturally socialize and collectivize. You idea is selfish and also self isolative...which is dangerous in this world. You should think on this a little more.

 

[untermensche]

What I think you are missing is that you are childishly guarding a hoard of marbles that really have no particular value. We are social animals and we will naturally socialize and collectivize. You idea is selfish and also self isolative...which is dangerous in this world. You should think on this a little more.

Humans are social animals, but when they live in diseased conditions, like conditions created by capitalism, they can be made anti-social.

One of the underlying beliefs of Anarchism, and perhaps it is a delusion, is that as you change the conditions people live under you will also change the people.

The idea that humans are malleable and adapt to the social conditions they find themselves in is not disputed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

...and the Faux news hit pieces you use aren't biased.....

First, the video was NOT attributed anywhere to Fox News.
Second, here it is also on YouTube as posted by someone else:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

When Leftists have no way to rationally rebut points clearly made, as in this case, from the doofus himself in his own words, they attack the source.
This is the Fallacy of Ad Hominem. Try addressing the comments of the Democrat Doofus, not whoever may have broadcast the message.

[/B]I'm sensing another Starman BS move.

There you go again, attacking me, after attacking Fox News.

Isn't it amusing that Leftists everywhere have only ONE major news network to lambaste for not carrying Obama's water.
ABC, toes the liberal line.
CBS, toes the liberal line.
NBC "
CNN "
The New York Times ORIGINATES the extreme left-wing liberal line.
On and on goes the list of left-wing mouthpieces. IF ONLY... IF ONLY Fox News would toe the Liberal Line with all your other mouthpieces,
then we could have the *real* news, right?

How often do your liberal mouthpieces have conservative guests speak on the air?
Oh that's right, just about NEVER.

Your BS. Have a big plate of it.

View attachment 3071

View attachment 3072

What in the blue heck does this have to do with school funding?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More data showing negative correlation between spending and educational results.
Bad news for liberals. Far worse news for children they brainwash and abuse.
The correlation coefficient is -.381.

View attachment 3078

Gee... it is almost as if there are other contributing factors regarding SAT scores, according to yet another unreferenced chart.

 

[SimpleDon]

When I become The Grand Empress of the Universe (and I will) my first law will be if you use the word socialist for something that isn't socialist or use the word as a proxy for the word evil or something I don't like, you will be dipped in honey and staked out next to a fire ant hill while 72 virgins pull off your fingernails, gauge (sic) out your eyes, and burn off all your body hair with acid, (sic) Then just before you die, you will be strapped to (sic) [a] rocket and flown into the SUN!!!

Are you a teacher? Professor Walter Williams, of George Mason University, stated that education majors scored lower on their SAT tests than any other major.
Teachers graduated, on average, in the bottom third of their college class.

You simply cannot criticize Walter Williams. He is black, and any such criticism would brand you as a "racist".

Why do you believe that? There is push here among our resident conservatives to redefine the word "racism" to refer to any consideration based on race. Is this why you think that any criticism of anyone can be considered to be racism? Assuming they have a "race."

Certainly no one can criticize him for stating a simple fact. I am not surprised that teachers have low SAT scores. You are not going to hire the best of the best at a starting salary of ~$30,000 a year. If you want better teachers you have to pay them more. I assume that people are happy with the quality of the teachers that we have. I am not.

I can criticize him because he is an Austrian/Libertarian economist at George Mason University, a noted Austrian school of economics school, if that makes sense. I caution you to not use Austrian or libertarian economics references, like George Mason, Auburn University, New York University or the CATO Institute.

The Austrian school of economics is a heterodoxical school of economics that is far out of the mainstream. They believe that collecting any economic data is futile, that if the data contradicts their theories, and not too surprisingly all data contradicts their theories, this means that the data set is corrupted, usually by unknown and unknowable market forces.

I don't know why they even have Austrian economics schools. Anyone who would hire an Austrian economist to work in government or a company would quickly figure out that their new expensive economist could be replaced by a card that says "Until the self-regulating, self-organizing free market spontaneously bursts into being it is very, very hard to predict what the economy will do in the future. Of course, after the self-regulating, self-organizing free market spontaneously burst into being it won't be very hard to predict what the economy will do in the future, it will be impossible."

Libertarianism and Marxism are actually alike in many respects. They are both 19th century, idealistic, anarchist, back to agrarian roots, back to nature fantasies. If anything, Marxism is the more rational of the two irrational systems. The Marxist fantasy at least included a blueprint of sorts of how it was going come to power, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The transitional government to destroy capitalism that was supposed to melt away leaving nothing but the local communes as the only form of government, that instead stayed and turned into the totalitarian Communist states that we all know. Austrians and libertarians have no idea how their self-regulating, self-organizing free market will come in to existence or how it would operate.

But they know that it will be wonderful.

 

[NobleSavage]

And I am telling you they don't work.

And I'm telling you what worked in 1970 isn’t goanna work today.

You don't think racism is passed down generationally?

Sure. That is why I used the word "inbred". Don't you see the generational and poverty issues involved?

If a child is told 2+2=5 and never corrected that he will magically know the right answer if you just ignore him saying five every problem is put before him?

You are not getting the subtlety of what I mean by "ignore". Imagine a group of people talking at a bar and one guy starts off on a racist rant. If everyone ignores him and continues talking about other things, like sports, and then KEEPS IGNORONG him when he tries to get back into the conversation – that is going to be powerful. If instead someone decides to call him a "racist" he will take pride in the label and go off on reverse racism, AA, or whatever. It gives him and the other racists the glue necessary to stick together.

And what of institutional, and structural racism.

I've got better things to do today than get into a discussion about institutional and structural racism. Which is exactly how people are goanna feel if you try to make a political issue about it: time to change the channel.

And how does one know what racism is if no one every explains it? How does one learn how to fight it or even that they should if they never see it acknowledged?

I'm not saying flush it down the memory hole. I'm not saying don't teach about it in school, but the battle cry of racism, the black monopoly of it, and the black franchise of it, are over. Done. We need to talk about racism and discrimination of all people and give examples of it in other countries – mostly because we have so many people from other countries living in the US now. Seeing as how our birth rate is below replacement level and our population is growing from immigration, yeah things need to change. Hell, things HAVE changed.

So you think that people are taking to the streets for no good reason?

Are you talking about Ferguson? I live in St. Louis and it's near by. My liberal Democratic political group talked about it quite a bit. Our conclusions of the problem were: 1) poverty of that area 2) poor schools in that area, and 3) police militarization.

Tell me, do you think the majority of white folks polled by Gallup in the 60s who said black people already had equality and quite possibly privilege were right then?

No, of course not. However, it's 55 years later, things HAVE changed. My original point was that "The cavalry doesn't want to give up the horse", not, "we no longer need a military."

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think we're being had and arguing with a bot.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What in the blue heck does this have to do with school funding?

I think he means Obama is a Mom pants wearing Islamo-Socialist-Fascist-Anti Colonialist Black Panther tyrant.

 

[NobleSavage]

Because if those who are smart enough to dislike socialism get lectured every time they mistakenly use it to refer to redistributionism, then those who have a blind faith in it should not make the same mistake they lecture others for.

What I think you are missing is that you are childishly guarding a hoard of marbles that really have no particular value. We are social animals and we will naturally socialize and collectivize. You idea is selfish and also self isolative...which is dangerous in this world. You should think on this a little more.

Arkirk you should read Mancur Olson, Jr.'s The Logic of Collective Action. It's standard reading for Poli Sci majors. It's not some diatribe by the Heritage Foundation or Kato. Summary: sometimes collective action makes sense; some times it doesn't, and it has problems.

What is interesting is that you want us all to be forced into socialism - this means you will be stuck in a collective of people who you don't like -- militant, right wing, conservative, religious nuts. If we were in Sweden I'd be more interested in collective action, but we are not in Sweden. If you get your big omnibus socialism bill passed to save the unicorns, I guarantee there will be a rider slipped in to pay for drones and bombs.