Bush is a hero

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137897 Jul 6, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Standards are good, and parents, not the government should determine what's acceptable for their child. You can usually trust parents, you can't trust the feds.
From the NY Times:
‘No Child’ Law Whittled Down by White House
By MOTOKO RICH, July 6, 2012
In just five months, the Obama administration has freed schools in more than half the nation from central provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law, raising the question of whether the decade-old federal program has been essentially nullified.
On Friday, the Department of Education plans to announce that it has granted waivers releasing two more states, Washington and Wisconsin, from some of the most onerous conditions of the signature Bush-era legislation. With this latest round, 26 states are now relieved from meeting the lofty — and controversial — goal of making all students proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. Additional waivers are pending in 10 states and the District of Columbia.
“The more waivers there are, the less there really is a law, right?” said Andy Porter, dean of the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.
While No Child Left Behind has been praised for forcing schools to become more accountable for the education of poor and minority children, it has been derided for what some regard as an obsessive focus on test results, which has led to some notorious cheating scandals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/education/n...
Interesting point of view you have about trusting parents. So you would agree that giving a parent or parents money to raise their child (housing, food, clothing, education, health, etc....) is much more preferable than giving them money to raise their child AND setting some requirements for them to meet.

If that is not what you meant, now would be an excellent time to clear the air.

Why? Because those same parents are going to take vouchers and place their children in a school where the parent or parents are not properly equipped to evaluate that school. How is a parent who most likely did not graduate from HS and who most likely does not value education going to properly evaluate the education their child receives?

If you check you will find it was the states that went to the federal government asking for changes. Do you think the federal government should be telling the states what and how to do things?

(My personal belief is that the federal government should set a broad, achievable baseline standards which the states are free to tighten up on when they desire. It is my understanding of your belief set that essentially the federal government should stay out of it.)

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137898 Jul 6, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
..... With this latest round, 26 states are now relieved from meeting the lofty — and controversial — goal of making all students proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014.....
I had this conversation recently on another thread. It all boils down to what a person believes is the purpose of school (primary and secondary). There are a couple of choices.

1. The purpose of primary and secondary education is to prepare students for college.(Essentially what we attempt to do today for the vast majority of students.)

2. The purpose of primary and secondary schools is to prepare students for their life after primary and secondary education according to their abilities and desires.

The differences between the two are striking. But it allows you to arrive at an answer to the following: At what grade level should a secondary school graduate be capable of reading and writing, and performing mathematical problem solving proficiently?

If you see the purpose of school as 1 then the answer is a higher grade than if you think the purpose is 2. And then you have to realistically think about how many students are capable of achieving the standard you set realistically.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#137899 Jul 6, 2012
Ds Higgins1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But history and declassified materials have proved that McCarthy was right, about some of those who were doggedly defended by the left......
A broken clock is right twice a day.

McCarthy's methods, his use of anticommunism as a tool to achieve personal power and notoriety, made it incredibly easy for real communists and their fellow travelers to discredit serious efforts to ferret out communists in the U.S. government.

I don't think the fact that McCarthy happened, perhaps accidentally, to have the names of some actual communists among the bizarre and wild charges he hurled about does anything at all to rehabilitate his reputation.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137900 Jul 6, 2012
Those who dislike the Healthcare Bill can rest assured that even as employment underperforms your Representatives in Congress will be voting for about the 31st time to repeal the law.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/payr...

Instead of job creation, they are paying attention to your desires on the healthcare bill.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#137901 Jul 6, 2012
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that I've mentioned your use of "obama blinders" TM on a few occasions.
True, but that's just your copout line.

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#137902 Jul 6, 2012
Off topic much?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137903 Jul 6, 2012
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>A broken clock is right twice a day.
McCarthy's methods, his use of anticommunism as a tool to achieve personal power and notoriety, made it incredibly easy for real communists and their fellow travelers to discredit serious efforts to ferret out communists in the U.S. government.
I don't think the fact that McCarthy happened, perhaps accidentally, to have the names of some actual communists among the bizarre and wild charges he hurled about does anything at all to rehabilitate his reputation.
Willie, I don't mind you disagreeing with or even proclaiming me incorrect, but when I read you rant I could visualize you pulling out your hair and stomping your feet.

All DS did was say that McCarthy, for whatever reason, was just a little bit correct. What he did not say was that McCarthy's reputation was restored by that little bit (some) of correctness.

I can suppose that DS was/is in intellectual and philosophical shock after having his "rock" Chief Justice Roberts seemingly betray him. And this might cause him to fly a little loose with his words as he tries to set his world straight again.

But it appears to me that you are imparting a meaning on his words that goes beyond what was actually written in his post. That is what you accused me of, and for the sake of thought I will state that perhaps mine was a more glaring example.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#137904 Jul 6, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Willie, I don't mind you disagreeing with or even proclaiming me incorrect, but when I read you rant
What rant?

I musta missed the rant, while I was reading his assertion.

My bad.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137905 Jul 6, 2012
A couple of interesting pieces. One on the healthcare bill and some things both republicans and democrats have said playing politics.

The other an interesting tidbit on our declaration of independence and the role both economics and Pennsylvania played in it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-04/mand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-03/how-...

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137906 Jul 6, 2012
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>What rant?
I musta missed the rant, while I was reading his assertion.
My bad.
"You have no substantiation, as in zero substantiation, nada substantiation, zilch substantiation, zip substantiation."

It was an assertive rant.....or a rant of assertion. Another point to ponder.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137907 Jul 6, 2012
For those of you who dislike the Obama administration as well as an intrusive government, the following should concern you:

"The Justice Department and the Obama administration had a chance to settle the issue in April 2011, during a Senate hearing on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Instead, officials with both the Commerce and Justice departments failed to provide any clarity. Instead, a Justice Department official argued against extending Fourth Amendment protections -- specifically strict warrant requirements -- to email, saying that doing so would hinder investigations."

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06...

But lets all look and Fast and Furious and the Healthcare Bill instead.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#137908 Jul 6, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
"You have no substantiation, as in zero substantiation, nada substantiation, zilch substantiation, zip substantiation."
It was an assertive rant.....or a rant of assertion. Another point to ponder.
Nah. I'm pondering why you took umbrage at the assertion instead.

By the way, what was your substantiation again?

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#137909 Jul 6, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Willie, I don't mind you disagreeing with or even proclaiming me incorrect, but when I read you rant I could visualize you pulling out your hair and stomping your feet.
All DS did was say that McCarthy, for whatever reason, was just a little bit correct. What he did not say was that McCarthy's reputation was restored by that little bit (some) of correctness.
I can suppose that DS was/is in intellectual and philosophical shock after having his "rock" Chief Justice Roberts seemingly betray him. And this might cause him to fly a little loose with his words as he tries to set his world straight again.
But it appears to me that you are imparting a meaning on his words that goes beyond what was actually written in his post. That is what you accused me of, and for the sake of thought I will state that perhaps mine was a more glaring example.
Rant?

To echo shovel, what rant?

Higgins made a post that I disagreed with, and I expressed my disagreement. The fact that McCarthy was right about a few people doesn't change the fact that he saw communists were there were none, particularly among his political opponents and those absolutely disgusted with his methods.

FYI, some of what appears to be imparting meaning to his words not clearly stated came from previous discussions on the subject in this thread.

The problem is, that's something you can't say about the whole ready for/resorting to violence tangent you went off on.

Now, I know you're looking for payback. You try too hard sometimes, OKB. I have ranted in this thread; I probably will again. You'll just have to be a little more patient and catch me when I actually do it.

;0)

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137910 Jul 6, 2012
A Christian Pastors gathering was held in Alabama:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/05/...

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137911 Jul 6, 2012
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Nah. I'm pondering why you took umbrage at the assertion instead.
By the way, what was your substantiation again?
My assertion was based on the strength of his words and the lack of latitude in dealing with the situation based on the strength of his words.

I think in a later comment he stated he agreed with Jefferson's course of action for tyranical government, just that the time had not come.......yet.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137912 Jul 6, 2012
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Rant?
To echo shovel, what rant?
Higgins made a post that I disagreed with, and I expressed my disagreement. The fact that McCarthy was right about a few people doesn't change the fact that he saw communists were there were none, particularly among his political opponents and those absolutely disgusted with his methods.
FYI, some of what appears to be imparting meaning to his words not clearly stated came from previous discussions on the subject in this thread.
The problem is, that's something you can't say about the whole ready for/resorting to violence tangent you went off on.
Now, I know you're looking for payback. You try too hard sometimes, OKB. I have ranted in this thread; I probably will again. You'll just have to be a little more patient and catch me when I actually do it.
;0)
I will wait patiently then.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#137913 Jul 6, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
"You have no substantiation, as in zero substantiation, nada substantiation, zilch substantiation, zip substantiation."
It was an assertive rant.....or a rant of assertion. Another point to ponder.
Oh, THAT rant.

Okay, since you don't seem ready to let this go ...

You formed a hypothesis (paraphrased, DS is ready for violent revolution) based on him expressing his view of what's wrong with the country.

Your so-called substantiation was actually deductive reasoning based on YOUR OWN ANALYSIS of what methods are available to him to address his grievances.

That's not substantiation. Substantiation would be something expressing a willingness to consider violence off the keyboard of DS Higgins, not the logical reasoning of OKB based on YOUR view of (cherry picking of) the options available to him.

Something more direct than post #137885, I might add.

Could he get there? I suppose. Do you have definitive proof (substantiation) that he's there now?

Not even close.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#137915 Jul 6, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting point of view you have about trusting parents. So you would agree that giving a parent or parents money to raise their child (housing, food, clothing, education, health, etc....) is much more preferable than giving them money to raise their child AND setting some requirements for them to meet.
If that is not what you meant, now would be an excellent time to clear the air.
I never said anything about giving parents money. I said vouchers.

If I was giving people money, I would do it by seeing they got to keep more of their earnings, BEFORE turning it over to a wasteful and inefficient federal government. It takes $3 dollars to be paid to the feds to get back $1 in benefits. That's waste on steroids.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137916 Jul 6, 2012
Bush needs to be brought up on war crime charges,plain and simple!!!!!

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#137917 Jul 6, 2012
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, THAT rant.
Okay, since you don't seem ready to let this go ...
You formed a hypothesis (paraphrased, DS is ready for violent revolution) based on him expressing his view of what's wrong with the country.
Your so-called substantiation was actually deductive reasoning based on YOUR OWN ANALYSIS of what methods are available to him to address his grievances.
That's not substantiation. Substantiation would be something expressing a willingness to consider violence off the keyboard of DS Higgins, not the logical reasoning of OKB based on YOUR view of (cherry picking of) the options available to him.
Something more direct than post #137885, I might add.
Could he get there? I suppose. Do you have definitive proof (substantiation) that he's there now?
Not even close.
I was simply responding to Shove's Post.

However I certainly agree with you that my opinion of where DS's post led was based on what I saw and read. To me, he left no apparent outlet as he included all of government and all of those currently serving to include Republicans and Democrats, Representatives, Senators, the President and VP as well as the Supreme Court. Even in the event of an election we will still have Republicans and Democrats primarilly.

To me, he was so broad-based with his brush of condemnation of the government that it leads to little choice in the matter.

"Willie, the evidence is quite palpable, IMO. There is simply no rationale for Roberts' ruling, as until now, he has proven to be a conservative. But even the reasons he gave for this ruling, just don't pass constitutional muster. The contrived argument, of him securing the courts public "image" is clear.

The elites are not all liberals, and neither are progressives, Willie. Those who wring their hands in frustration, at the restrictions placed on them by the US constitution are progressive-statists. I have seen the trend, where the Congress colludes with the CIC with the judiciary, to increase their "elitist" powers.

They seldom "check" each other any more.... They have all become one big conglomeration, sucking more and more liberty from the people. They do this by expanding their tentacles, into every aspect of our lives. The evidence is all around you, sir.... I just don't know what else I can say to make you see...."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 min confrinting with ... 650,341
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 14 min andet1987 2,333
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 22 min Catcher1 56,071
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 36 min Classic 3,732
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 1 hr Brian_G 37
Washing machines are a waste of water and energy 1 hr Just Think 3
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Neville Thompson 44,965
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 2 hr kobechi3 71
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 hr trifecta1 971,800
More from around the web