Zap! Pow! Biff! Flaggle!

Did El Pro go to get an icepack or something?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:It's a well-known fact that state politics sucks corporate cock. It'd be giving education over to the hucksters and shysters.

State and local governments have been managing their schools for decades. Quit babbling that removing power from Washington returns control to the local districts. The local districts already have the power, but they are slowly losing power over curriculum to federal tyrants- at the same time that America turns out dumber and dumber high school grads. How do you explain America's children falling behind at the same time that federal meddling into education increases, Panic?

colonel panic wrote:There are some things that work best when they're centralized.

Yeah, imagine if we had local folks in control of their taxes and spending- how in the hell could they ever create a $60 trillion vat of red ink like the globalist servants of the central omnipotent monolith that Panic worships?

Since 1990, the share of students lacking even basic reading skills has risen by a third, from 20 percent to 27 percent.

Only 35 percent of high school seniors have reached a "proficient" level in reading, down from 40 percent.

Only 16 percent of black and 20 percent of Hispanic students had reached a proficient level in reading.

Among high school seniors, only 29 percent of whites, 10 percent of Hispanic students and 6 percent of black students were proficient in math.

http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_grade12_2005/

First of all, (I can't believe I have to say tihs again) quit with the strawman argument Rick. You really do sound like an idiot when you do that. Whether or not I choose to "worship" is none of your business (or anyone else's for that matter) but I can assure you I do not worship--or even admire--the US government or any other "omnipotent monolith".

The "vat of red ink" as you describe it has been caused over the last 30 or so odd years by Republican federal spending gone hogwild. The Republicans like to call Democrats "tax-and-spend liberals", but the Republicans on the other hand love to spend our tax monies on bullshit that makes them and their friends rich, but doesn't help the economy or the average citizen at all, and they just let the bills rack up higher and higher. Total fiscal irresponsibility, mostly on the part of Republican administrations, is the cause of the "vat of red ink".

Allow me to illustrate:

As this chart shows, a lion's share of the national debt is indeed due from government and Fed. Reserve contracts (no surprise there):



And this chart illustrates the debt (adjusted for inflation). I have taken the liberty of apportioning it according to sitting president and including their party representations.



As for the decline in scholastic ability, in typical hamfisted Clocker Reuben fashion, you have chosen to place the blame on the Federal Dept. of Education "meddling" without examining real facts and trends, simply because it's what you prefer to believe (or what your beloved libertarian shitheads like to preach).

Does this mean that America's schools were not already exhibiting dismal performance, prior to 1979 when the ED was created? If memory serves me correctly, the Department of Education was actually created by President Carter in response to a perceived deficit in American academic performance relative to certain European countries, especially the Soviet Union (countries which in fact had or still have a much greater degree of governmental control over education than the US has ever had).

caix wrote:

Skronk wrote:

El Protoolio wrote:

Skronk wrote:

El Protoolio wrote:

Skronk wrote:What are supporters of the democrats basing their choices on?

I don't know, why don't you ask the Democratic supporters? I can't speak for them.

So what was your point about "rich white men", or even posting about Paul? Just trolling?

Did I hurt your feelings? You Paul folks are so sensitive.

Haha, no hurt feelings here. You just sound like a disgruntled, and undecided voter.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but undecided voters are the biggest dumbasses this country has to deal with. If you were undecided in 2000 and 2004, I'm sorry but you are the worst judge of character or are completely gullible. Anyone who said Gore and Bush were the same candidate was not paying attention. And still wasn't paying attention the following election.

Grow a set dude. Seriously.

It seems you're referring to me. I should grow a set because?

I'm not an undecided voter, far from it. I've made a conscious choice not to vote for either a democrat or republican.

I wonder if El Protoolio isn't voting for Ron Paul because Paul's unpopular, or if he's not voting for Ron Paul because he doesn't agree with Ron Paul.

I wonder whom Rick Reuben would be voting for if Ron Paul weren't in the race.

I wonder whom Skronk is voting for.

I wonder whom I will vote for if Clinton gets the nomination.

I voted for Obama for Senate in 2004, not for the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008. So what? Not sure what Rick proves by pointing that out but whatever. My views haven't changed since then. If anything my feeling that my vote is worthless here is even more solidified since then.

Ron Paul the conservative anti choice rich white Christian male is not the answer for me. He never was. I agree with one or two of his views. That's it and that's not enough for me to support him. Get the fuck over it you crybabies. What a bunch of pussies you are.

Ricky's real problem with me is that I am smarter then he is and more honest than he is and I am more consistent in my views then he is. It drives him crazy that I won't always side with him. He gets obsessed with me and my views every once in awhile and then launches into ad hominem attacks against me but never has any real argument because he knows he has nothing on me and that he couldn't keep up with me even if he did. What he really wants is my intelligence and my eloquent command of the written language helping him to fight his pathetic political battles with him on a god damn punk rock forum. His man crush for me has reached the point of stalking.

Of course parents seek out the best education for their kids. I just think that the potential for greater thought regulation rests at the local level rather than the national level. The U.S. Department of Education has to deal with a wide range of ideologies and thought to keep its cobnstituents satisfied. If final control of the educational process rested at the city or ward, or district, or whatever other local division, the close knit communities could easily stamp out anything that didn't fit their worldview. All in the name of "what's best"

But tell me, what is so evil about setting some basic standards for education that the states and local governments cannot go below? Like maybe a high school graduate should know how to read or know his times tables. And maybe teachers should at least be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of the subject they wish to teach. If you want to teach more or require more from the teachers, fine.

Under the guise of "its best for our children" communities of people organize schools that are frequently subpar. Sure there will obviously be situations where the kids get superior educations.

And homeschooling works for some, not for others. I think as long as they are accountable to somebody besides the household they teach in they can do whatever the hell they want. The homeschools where kids do best are usually accountable to the state department of education at the least. And I have no national data to bring from, only experience locally that suggests the kids who enter the public schools here are just as behind as the private schooled ones. But that's only one county in a state of 159 and a nation of god knows how many.

Last night before the Super Tuesday update, the local news reported that the Virginia Election Commission was flooded with angry calls from voters complaining that their local polling places were closed.

(Hint: Virginia's primary is next week.)

In a fair world, these people should have been redirected to a fake polling place with fake voting machines. Names are taken, voter registrations are revoked, the greater public good is served.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I wonder if El Protoolio isn't voting for Ron Paul because Paul's unpopular, or if he's not voting for Ron Paul because he doesn't agree with Ron Paul.

That's fine if he doesn't agree with Paul. He is arguing that his refusal to vote speaks louder than my vote for a candidate I like. He is wrong.

Nope. You are wrong because I never said that. You said I said it in your little one act play, but I didn't actually say it.

I know you have such a hard time with my honesty and your dishonesty not squaring but the fact is I didn't make that argument and I am not making it now.

Skronk wrote:

caix wrote:

Skronk wrote:

El Protoolio wrote:

Skronk wrote:

El Protoolio wrote:

Skronk wrote:What are supporters of the democrats basing their choices on?

I don't know, why don't you ask the Democratic supporters? I can't speak for them.

So what was your point about "rich white men", or even posting about Paul? Just trolling?

Did I hurt your feelings? You Paul folks are so sensitive.

Haha, no hurt feelings here. You just sound like a disgruntled, and undecided voter.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but undecided voters are the biggest dumbasses this country has to deal with. If you were undecided in 2000 and 2004, I'm sorry but you are the worst judge of character or are completely gullible. Anyone who said Gore and Bush were the same candidate was not paying attention. And still wasn't paying attention the following election.

Grow a set dude. Seriously.

It seems you're referring to me. I should grow a set because?

I'm not an undecided voter, far from it. I've made a conscious choice not to vote for either a democrat or republican.

it's really a reference to Ron Paul supporters. and i have a pretty dry sense of humor. i think we both feel the same way. i registered independent this year.

protoolio said something good (for once ) the other day: "i'll never vote republican and i'll hold my nose when voting for a democrat."

i would love for a viable third party. however, in 2008 i would not vote for any third party. i think the only real choice the country has is to make a point and reject republicans for their obscene failures over the last 8 years. politicians get away with their bullshit when voters either keep voting for them or by being apathetic.