Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on July 05, 2004, 03:29:10 PM
-
NEA Endorses Kerry for President
1 hour, 25 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON - The National Education Association, the nation's largest union, endorsed Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) for president Monday, the final touch in its campaign to drive up school spending and reshape the biggest education law in decades.
The NEA, a 2.7-million member group composed mainly of teachers, is out to advance its agenda on everything from testing students to halting private-school vouchers. The union is mobilizing its money and forces for Kerry — targeting political staff in 15 swing states, going into schools to rally its members, and joining liberal groups to organize a massive night of political house parties.
Kerry, who is scheduled to speak to the 9,000 delegates at the NEA convention on Tuesday, was endorsed by 86.5 percent of them. The Massachusetts senator offers many teacher-friendly promises the union likes, but he also advances ideas the NEA has long opposed, such as paying bonuses to teachers based on student test scores.
Although a quarter of NEA members identify themselves with the Republican Party, the union has never endorsed a Republican for president and typically spends $9 out of every $10 it raises on Democrats. Its relationship with the Bush administration has been particularly salamanderly since his education secretary, Rod Paige, jokingly referred to the union as a "terrorist organization" and annoyed members with how he apologized for the remark.
More $$ to dump into the black hole we call the public school system...GO JFK!!!
-
That is news! Talk about out of the blue! Kerry gets the NEA nod...I'm shocked! Shocked that there is gambling going on here...
-
NEA sucks, an endorsment by them is like being endorsed by the FDB's.
-
Hey now, we bring in the much needed drunkard and pervert votes. How do you think Clinton got re-elected, anyhow?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That is news! Talk about out of the blue! Kerry gets the NEA nod...I'm shocked! Shocked that there is gambling going on here...
Crazy, right?
Next thing, the Gay and Lesbian vote will swing his wa....It did?
Oh...
Well, the minorities..... they did too...
I see...
Any day now, major leaders in Europe will want John Ker....
Ah, nevermind.
-
DYERSVILLE, Iowa - As Sen. John Kerry campaigned across Iowa on Sunday with Gov. Tom Vilsack, widely reported to be on Kerry's vice presidential short list, both men dodged repeated questions about whether their joint appearance might be a preview of the Democratic ticket.
But even as he tried to avoid making news Sunday, Kerry broke new ground in an interview that ran in the daily Telegraph Herald of Dubuque, Iowa.
A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."
(http://www.businessforyou.com/catalog_products/Pics/virtualminders/confused.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."
Am I getting this right.....he opposes abortion but supports a womans right to choose? can this guy really be on both sides of every issue?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"I believe life does begin at conception."--JFK
For some future humans, physical appearance apparently doesn't improve after conception either.
-
"i was against abortion before i was for it".... no i ment i was for it before i was against it.
the chevy suburban really belongs to my wife
i gave my ribbons back but not my medals that the ribbons stood for.
i flip-floped before i flop-fliped
JFK...aka ..john kerry...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Am I getting this right.....he opposes abortion but supports a womans right to choose? can this guy really be on both sides of every issue?
I suspect that represents the majority view --- personally opposes abortion (in other words, you and your wife wouldn't choose this alternative,) but you support the right for other women to make this decision.
It's sort of like I oppose anyone trying to shoot me down in AH, but I support their right to do so.
curly
-
"i was an idiot before i was a moron" -john9001
-
It goes a little further than that curly. By saying that he believes that life begins at conception, he's basically saying that abortion is murder. Let it sink in, if he TRULY believes that life begins at conception then aborting that life is killing an innocent human being.
The traditional democratic stance is to say something to the effect of "abortion wouldn't be an option for me personally, but I support each woman's right to choose." Or something like that. I'm sure democrats are furiously at work to try and break some story to cover this one up.
Cougar
-
Originally posted by Cougar68
It goes a little further than that curly. By saying that he believes that life begins at conception, he's basically saying that abortion is murder. Let it sink in, if he TRULY believes that life begins at conception then aborting that life is killing an innocent human being.
The traditional democratic stance is to say something to the effect of "abortion wouldn't be an option for me personally, but I support each woman's right to choose." Or something like that. I'm sure democrats are furiously at work to try and break some story to cover this one up.
Cougar
Hey Coug,
Cougar, those are his personal religious beliefs. They have absolutely nothing to do with his political beliefs.
I had a physics prof a long time that I really respected. Very bright fellow. ;) Later, I got to personally know him and discovered he was a serious christian. I asked him "how can you believe christian dogma when you know scientifically it's inconsistent and illogical?"
He said "I have two hats and I never wear them at the same time."
Many catholic politicians are personally against abortion while at the same time, they support the law of the land. There's nothing contradictory or wrong-headed about that at all.
curly
-
I don't like Kerry, but I do understand his stance. I also don't think valid life begins at conception, but I do think abortion is murder, unless it is done very early. I also don't think that anyone else has to agree with my position; that is, I wouldn't deny abortion to anyone, but I would certainly have no part of it, and it does impact my view of someone if I know they have been involved with an abortion.
(Catholic by up-bringing, not by practice)
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Hey Coug,
Cougar, those are his personal religious beliefs. They have absolutely nothing to do with his political beliefs.
and his political "beliefs" changes with the wind
just wait a while and the one belief will be in line with the other and later will be 180 degrees out again
the guy is a joke - LOL
(http://www.pogbird.com/ebay/2face_sm.jpg)
-
Lets see...
Teachers are for Kerry, but we all know teachers suck.
Policemen are for Kerry, but we all know policemen suck.
Firefighters are for Kerry, but we all know firefighters suck.
Looks like all the lazy good for nothings are voting Kerry.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Lets see...
Teachers are for Kerry, but we all know teachers suck.
Policemen are for Kerry, but we all know policemen suck.
Firefighters are for Kerry, but we all know firefighters suck.
Looks like all the lazy good for nothings are voting Kerry.:rolleyes:
UNIONS......NOT the teachers policeman and firefighters themselves.....ITS the UNION bigwigs that give the endorcements and ask their members to vote their way!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Am I getting this right.....he opposes abortion but supports a womans right to choose? can this guy really be on both sides of every issue?
how hard is this to understand?
I believe life begins at conception.
I believe abortion is murder.
I refuse to have any involvement in one and don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for a single one.
I accept the fact that while it is wrong( and in an ideal world, it should not exist), there isn't a damn thing I can do to make the situation better.
If a woman hates her baby enough to kill it, or is so fluff'n selfish and irresponsible that she would rather kill her own child than own up to the responsibility's she has allowed herself to be exposed to, then what the hell do you think you can do about it?
do you force her to take it to term? you hire cops to spend the day with her? make sure she takes vitamins, eats right and stays sober? or do you just deny the abortion, let her poison the poor kid, let it be born with all sorts of handicaps and side-effects into a world with a mother who didn't want him even before she knew how fluffied up he was gonna be?
any of those situations sound better too you?
maybe you have a better plan? you come up with one and I'll vote for you.
but for now it's just the way it is. it's a messed up situation, but I don't see anything that would make it better. not every problem can be made better, if you are a smarter type guy you know when to accept that and let a situation be. if your one of the "I gotta do something, even if it's wrong" type of guys you can jump right in there and pass a few laws that create bigger problems than the original ever was.
you want to do something real to stop abortion? make sure jobs are available for people who need them, and make sure they pay enough that a man can support his family on what he makes.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
how hard is this to understand?
I believe life begins at conception.
I believe abortion is murder.
I refuse to have any involvement in one and don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for a single one.
I accept the fact that while it is wrong( and in an ideal world, it should not exist), there isn't a damn thing I can do to make the situation better.
If a woman hates her baby enough to kill it, or is so fluff'n selfish and irresponsible that she would rather kill her own child than own up to the responsibility's she has allowed herself to be exposed to, then what the hell do you think you can do about it?
.
ITS SIMPLE......DONT SUPPPORT MURDER...you said it yourself...it is MURDER......
SECOND.....DONT ELECT THOSE THAT DO!
Saying a woman has the right to chose is like saying a man has the right to choose.....he cant just say I Dont want to be a father.
I've allways said their are situations that warrent it but it's MURDER
Does a woman have the right to kill her 2 year old because she cant take it anymore or her carreer is suffering? NO why? because its MURDER....no difference!
-
What? teachers are against vouchers and for kerry? nooooo! Next you will be telling me that colored people will vote unanimously for him and maybe even women and idealistic young mush heads who haven't figured out the game yet.
Well.. we wouldn't want people to know how it could be or to.... have choice now would we?
firefighters and police are not for kerry tho.. their unions are.. so are the unions of auto workers and even public employees... Anyone who wishes to limit choice.
life begining at conceptin makes it murder when you end it any time after that. I have no problem with murder but ....let's not call it " a womans right to choose" That is like calling executions the states right to choose. It is good for us to admit what we are doing.
lazs
-
for anyone to state "I believe life does begin at conception"
and then say abortion should/stay as a legal nothing more than, please do not include "mothers health" crapola line, than a morning after "oops" birth control method is unbalanced & undecisive at best and more likely just a two faced "wanna make both sides happy" liar - that what you want to lead?
wonder how edwards feels about it ?? - LOL
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ITS SIMPLE......DONT SUPPPORT MURDER...you said it yourself...it is MURDER......
SECOND.....DONT ELECT THOSE THAT DO!
Saying a woman has the right to chose is like saying a man has the right to choose.....he cant just say I Dont want to be a father.
I've allways said their are situations that warrent it but it's MURDER
Does a woman have the right to kill her 2 year old because she cant take it anymore or her carreer is suffering? NO why? because its MURDER....no difference!
again. what is your better solution?
make it illegal and let hese people bring neglected or abused kids into the world (after who knows what the uncaring ***** did to them while she was pregnant)?
or do we asign cops to watch all pregnant women to make sure the don't try to kill the kid with their lifestyle?
some issues you can't change by making it a law. the greatest decline in abortions(since the where legalised and figures could be kept) and teen pregnancy where during the Clinton years. and there where no more restrictive laws, these changes where brought about by education and a reasonable chance at a future that could suport a child.
-
That should tell you that an increasing number of women do not consider abortion a viable alternative, Capt. Apathy, and that would have nothing to do with the administration.
-
not that it matters but the group that is getting the most abortions is middle class white women. There is no huge pool of "unwanted" little white babies that are up for adoption. In fact they are worth quite a bit.
lazs
-
I agree completely. and that is how you stop abortion, to get people to know it's evil, and refuse to be a part of it.
the only way to stop abortion is to get people to understand that it is wrong. you can't legislate morality. you may feel better, feel that you are doing something, but if it doesn't fix the problem or just causes bigger problems it's not worth doing.
we do need to do some things to legally fight it. refusing to allow our tax dollars to support programs who teach that it is 'just another option', and nothing more than a simple medical procedure would be an excellent start.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the only way to stop abortion is to get people to understand that it is wrong. you can't legislate morality. you may feel better, feel that you are doing something, but if it doesn't fix the problem or just causes bigger problems it's not worth doing.
Just playing devil's advocate here...
A lot of people in the South said that about integrating the schools.
-
integrating schools was a bandaid that was used to patch up the basic problem with public schools... the fact that they can be so bad and that people who live in some neigborhoods or cities or states get 10 times better education...
vouchers are the ultimate equalizer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
ITS SIMPLE......DONT SUPPPORT MURDER...you said it yourself...it is MURDER......
So is the death penalty..IT'S MURDER
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Saying a woman has the right to chose is like saying a man has the right to choose.....
:confused:
Originally posted by Gunslinger
he cant just say I Dont want to be a father.
No but he CAN use a condom, or at least foot the bill for 1/2 the bill for birth control pills... and many men demonstrate they don't want to be a father, simply by walking away...but everyone gets upset when some teenager has a kid then abandons it in a church...or a dumpster...
-
As I've learned from Christians in discussions regarding the 10 Commandments, murder is an illegal killing.
Abortion isn't illegal, therefor it's not murder.
Also, execution isn't illegal (at least in some states) therefor it's not murder.
-
Interesting how someone so opposed to government and taxation would support vouchers. There's a real issue about being double taxed.(Once for the taxes which pay for public school and again for tuition of private school.)
What if we don't use state funds? if not, then how does the state mandate a curriculum for the students in private schools? How does the state ensure every fourth grader has been introduced to the same subjects of learning such as Math, English, Social Studies, and Science with out the contributions of funds?
1.Since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st Amendment separation of church and state. The fact is that over 95 percent of all school vouchers go to religious schools.
2.Vouchers take funds away from already underfunded public schools. One of the biggest reasons public schools are failing is that they can't keep up with the ever increasing cost of books, teachers, computers, security, etc. If we start subsidizing private schools, much-needed funds will be diverted from the public schools. This will only make bad schools worse.
3.Private schools aren't accountable to any oversight organization; thus, they may not act responsibly. Public schools are subject to government oversight and more rules & regulation. Thus, tighter control is placed on the teaching methods and system of education. With little or no oversight, we don't know how well private schools will perform.
4. Public schools must accept everyone regardless of disabilities, test scores, religion, or other characteristics; private schools can show favoritism or discrimination in selecting students. Private schools can establish any criteria they want for selecting or rejecting students. Thus, they can discriminate or make eligibility standards much more difficult for poorer students. Public schools on the other hand must accommodate all types of students regardless of what challenges they present. Government funds should be kept with the public schools that take on these challenges rather than private schools that may discriminate.
-
The problem Red Tail is that public schools have been failing for many years, and the problem is not money. Every time someone mentions poor test scores the first thing that seems to thrown out by the NEA is the need for more money. If you look at the problem in simple money terms then according to the stats posted AT PBS (not a conservative think tank) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/school_funding.html) you would think New Jersey and New York would have the best educated kids in the world. I will grant that some areas have poor public schools because the areas are poor to begin with (Mississippi, Oklahoma) and those areas probably should get increased federal funding. If you look you might find it interesting that your hero, Bill Clinton's state Arkansas ranks 48th among funding for education.
Funding is only part of the problem. There are several.
One is poor input by parents. Parents drop their kids off at school and use it more as a babysitting service than an educational start. If you look at areas with poor student performance you will find that many of these areas parental involvement is little to none. My wife's best friend is a teacher, it seems the only time her failing students parents become aware of a problem is when the failure notice gets home. All the money in the world won't mean crap if the parent's aren't involved at home.
The other problem is the institutional makeup of the schools. Unions like the NEA have bastardized themselves into something they should never be. These groups care more about maintaining the status quo than they do improving outcomes for kids. I am not saying they don't want kids to improve, its simply that they don't want to try anything different from the status quo to improve it. Schools are administration heavy and advisor heavy now, something that sucks funds away from educational and extra-curricular activities.
Lousy teachers with tenure are almost impossible to fire in some districts. These teachers continue not teaching and are pretty much untouchable. Sorry, have seen it first hand with my own kids. Mrs Krabople from the Simpson's is a satiracle overdramatization but I have seen some teachers that are pretty close. Good teachers are threatened with censure (or even firing-I guess it is ok then) if they fail too many kids. Some teachers have literally had their grades altered by administration personnel so that the kids can make graduation or so they can get a better GPA for college. What does that prove? Nothing. Grades are worthless if they mean nothing.
What bugs me is that even things like Charter schools are getting flak from the NEA. These schools try new things, in the public realm, yet never make it due to static from the union. Many of these new ideas are attempted so they can be implemented at the entire school level. However the status quo is what keeps the NEA happy, not the improvment of students.
That is why school vouchers have become the latest idea. If the public schools weren't jacked up to start with why would the idea come about? The rich aren't going to benefit that much from it, they can afford to send their kids to private schools anyway. Do you think that John Kerry's kids went to public school? Name one big name politician that sent their kids to a public school? Who will benefit? Why the poor will, those that can't afford a higher priced private school.
But then again, an eductated electorate may not vote the way we want. Better off keeping them dumb, it's easier to manipulate them that way.
-
Red Tail,
I'm sure all of that is a great comfort to the parents of poor children stuck in substandard and dangerous inner-city schools without the financial recourse to enroll them in something better.
Why should these parents be expected to continue to support failing public schools with their tax money?
Isn't it strange that the heartless Republicans support school vouchers while the feel-your-pain Democrats are against them? That is hardly a coincidence, considering the fact that the Dems are the beneficiaries of massive campaign contributions by the NEA. The Democrats are for "Freedom of Choice" on almost any issue one can name...except for this one.
Besides, when did a Democrat ever worry about too much taxing and spending?
-
You nailed it pretty good, wklink. I would also like to add that, while vouchers may take money away from the public school, it also takes a student away. So it also reduces the burden on the public school by reducing enrollements and class sizes. It is fact that everywhere vouchers have been tried, they have met with success. It gives less fortunate kids the opportunity to go to private school that they are otherwise denied by their economic status.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
UNIONS......NOT the teachers policeman and firefighters themselves.....ITS the UNION bigwigs that give the endorcements and ask their members to vote their way!
Exactly right...I recall in 2000 when the Teamsters endorsed Gore...yet our UPS plant was firmly against him, much to the disgust of the local union reps who insisted on trying to teach us "dumb working folk" who to vote for.
-
Originally posted by wklink
Better off keeping them dumb, it's easier to manipulate them that way.
Exactly, and here's my intervention to help you all become better educated about the facts regarding school vouchers.
Proponents of vouchers are asking Americans to do something contrary to the very ideals upon which this country was founded. Thomas Jefferson, one of the architects of religious freedom in America, said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves... is sinful and tyrannical." Yet voucher programs would do just that; they would force citizens -- Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists -- to pay for the religious indoctrination of school children at schools with narrow parochial agendas. In many areas, 90 percent of vouchers would be used in schools whose central mission is religious training. In most such schools, religion permeates the classroom, the lunchroom, even the football practice field. Channeling public money to these institutions flies in the face of the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state.
Also, under a system of vouchers, it may be difficult to prevent schools run by extremist groups like the Nation of Islam or the Ku Klux Klan from receiving public funds to subsidize their racist and anti-Semitic agendas. maybe that's what some of you want.
Finally...(only for the benefit of a short read), as an empirical matter, reports on the effectiveness of voucher programs have been mixed. reports on Cleveland's voucher program suggest that it has been less effective than proponents argue. Milwaukee's program has resulted in a huge budget shortfall, leaving the public schools scrambling for funds. While some studies suggest that vouchers are good for all parties, there is, as yet, little evidence that they ultimately improve the quality of education for those who need it most.
Maybe we should just declare the First Amendment and the separation of church and state null and void...just gimme my guns!
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Exactly, and here's my intervention to help you all become better educated about the facts regarding school vouchers.
Proponents of vouchers are asking Americans to do something contrary to the very ideals upon which this country was founded. Thomas Jefferson, one of the architects of religious freedom in America, said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves... is sinful and tyrannical." Yet voucher programs would do just that; they would force citizens -- Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists -- to pay for the religious indoctrination of school children at schools with narrow parochial agendas. In many areas, 90 percent of vouchers would be used in schools whose central mission is religious training. In most such schools, religion permeates the classroom, the lunchroom, even the football practice field. Channeling public money to these institutions flies in the face of the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state.
Also, under a system of vouchers, it may be difficult to prevent schools run by extremist groups like the Nation of Islam or the Ku Klux Klan from receiving public funds to subsidize their racist and anti-Semitic agendas. maybe that's what some of you want.
Finally...(only for the benefit of a short read), as an empirical matter, reports on the effectiveness of voucher programs have been mixed. reports on Cleveland's voucher program suggest that it has been less effective than proponents argue. Milwaukee's program has resulted in a huge budget shortfall, leaving the public schools scrambling for funds. While some studies suggest that vouchers are good for all parties, there is, as yet, little evidence that they ultimately improve the quality of education for those who need it most.
Maybe we should just declare the First Amendment and the separation of church and state null and void...just gimme my guns!
This is almost too easy.....
Before I start picking you apart on this statement I want to know a couple of things.
How many children, school age or otherwise do you have? In addition, how much property tax have you paid last year? Since property taxes pay for most school programs and since the children are the ones that most benefit I am interested to see what your responses are to those. We like to pull this old 'walk a mile in my shoes' crap so lets see if you have even paid a dime in property tax.
I'm taking my 7 year old golfing. I'll see if you have any response to this when I get back.
-
Originally posted by wklink
This is almost too easy.....
Before I start picking you apart on this statement I want to know a couple of things.
How many children, school age or otherwise do you have? In addition, how much property tax have you paid last year? Since property taxes pay for most school programs and since the children are the ones that most benefit I am interested to see what your responses are to those.
stinky bait...although it seems I struck a nerve...the last line of your post (that i dind't include) already suggests that an intelligent conversation with you will be impossible...but I'll humor you for a while...
I have two young boys. I own a home in Rhode Island, and a townhome in Minnesota, so break out your calculator yourself and crunch the numbers you want.
-
vouchers are the only means in place in an attempt to hold schools/teachers accountable for their performance or lack there of
the public school system is a joke as it stands today - something has to change, it hasn't worked the way it has been, vouchers are at least an attempt at change
oh and the voucher is really the parents money returned in the form of a "refund" for poor services rendered, so you can keep your 1st admen whine ..
-
No stinky bait. I just want to know what your perspective is as a property owner and as a parent before I start arguing with you. A lot of people post opinions here, and a lot of them don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Since you own property, and pay taxes to support schools, plus have two kids then I have more respect for your opinions.
As I said, I am taking my son to the golf course, tee time is in less than 1/2 hour and it takes 20 minutes to get there.
Will respond when I get home.
-
red tail... nice rehash of the party line...but... the facts get in the way..
There is no problem with seperation of church and state. Any schol that did not abide by the law would not be funded. Several private schools have proven that they can take the rejects and worst performers of any school system and dramaticly improve their grades.... it seem so funny to me that you would say that it would be taking money away from public schools... it is like admitting that public schools can't compete even on a financial basis with real schools... they can't compete academicly or finanacialy with private schools and the students and the country suffers.
As for Jefferson... first off... a liberal quoting jefferson is indeed laughable but... Jefferson would have seen far more of parents being forced to have their children indoctrinated with things they opposse in PUBLIC schools... Public schools are cesspools of junk science and liberal mush. A parent should be able to choose if they want a little religion or a couple of lesbians giving demonstrations.
lazs
-
Originally posted by wklink
No stinky bait. I just want to know what your perspective is as a property owner and as a parent before I start arguing with you. A lot of people post opinions here, and a lot of them don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Since you own property, and pay taxes to support schools, plus have two kids then I have more respect for your opinions.
As I said, I am taking my son to the golf course, tee time is in less than 1/2 hour and it takes 20 minutes to get there.
Will respond when I get home.
Lose a few in the drink for me
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it is like admitting that public schools can't compete even on a financial basis with real schools... they can't compete academicly or finanacialy with private schools and the students and the country suffers.lazs
You are 1/2 right, which is better than most of your posts. You generalize far too much...while most public schools cannot compete financially, many i fact produce talent that rivals students who have graduated from private schools.
Originally posted by lazs2
As for Jefferson... first off... a liberal quoting jefferson is indeed laughable but... Jefferson would have seen far more of parents being forced to have their children indoctrinated with things they opposse in PUBLIC schools... Public schools are cesspools of junk science and liberal mush. A parent should be able to choose if they want a little religion or a couple of lesbians giving demonstrations.
You are indeed liberal in your labeling of anything not intimately aligned to your worldview as liberal. Given your assessment of Public schools, did you in fact attend a cesspool, or just fail to take advantage of the educational opportunities they were laid bare before you? or, did you attend private school?
What school did you hear of lesbian teachers giving demonstrations?
OTOH, if you think there aren't lesbian nuns in the convent teaching religion to our children in the classroom, you are horribly misinformed :lol
-
when will all you guys wake up and realize it is not about education at all.....It's about money. The teachers want more.....in order for them to get more the schools have to get more.
Public schools need to be held accountable.....just like any other public office or service that is funded with govt tax money.
If a school is teaching material that I do not agree with to my children why should I not have the choice for my tax dollars to fund my childs education elsewhere.....
Again its not about the education....its about money. People want to dragg religion and extremest groups into this but what does that have to do with anything if the kids are getting a good education at a private school and a poor one at a public. Again...where is the accountablility?
My daughter starts kintergarden this year and I would love to send her to a christian school. I just cant afford it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
My daughter starts kintergarden this year and I would love to send her to a christian school. I just cant afford it.
and if you could you still may not get in ...
there was a waiting list everytime I inquired about Catholic grade school for my boys .. after 12 years of public school for both of them, I can see why ...
since they are out of "public" school, i am all for not having any of my tax $$ wasted in the "system" as it is today
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Lose a few in the drink for me
You know, I started to write something to counter your arguments and then re-read something you wrote:
Also, under a system of vouchers, it may be difficult to prevent schools run by extremist groups like the Nation of Islam or the Ku Klux Klan from receiving public funds to subsidize their racist and anti-Semitic agendas. maybe that's what some of you want.
I find this highly insulting and I am suprised I missed this the first time. It is a typical attack on anyone that may have something remotely conservative in their thought pattern. You threw a snit when someone labeled you a liberal but you threw out the ol Neo Nazi crap when someone disagree with you.
It is very easy to prevent organizations like this from receiving federal money. Its call oversight. They do it for hospitals, for nursing homes, heck its done everywhere, what makes you think that they won't be monitoring where these vouchers go. In fact, most advocates say right off the bat that these vouchers will only go to schools that pass certain minimum requirements to take students-ie they must have licensed teachers, teach to a curriculim that meets state standards for licensure, etc. etc. These wacked out groups wouldn't be able to meet these standards, nor would they want to.
As for the church and state stuff. Using that logic all tax exempt status should be pulled from them. Tax money now goes to help support soup kitchens and other homeless activities started or run by charities. Some main stream groups, from the Y to the Boy and Girl scouts already meet on school property. I guess they should throw them out too. It would be a good idea to get rid of that subversive organization called the Boy Scouts huh?
We have been funding education at private schools for a long time. School busses run from private schools to take kids home. Some of that is reimbursed by the school I am sure but I am willing to bet that some of it is paid for by the taxpayer. Lets stop that too. Lets stop student loans to kids that go to Notre Dame or Georgetown.
You know, I was really looking forward to having a friendly debate with you over this until I realized you called me a Neo-Nazi because I wanted kids to get the best education possible. Maybe I should respond with some stupid insult in kind but I don't think I will stoop to your level.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
NEA sucks, an endorsment by them is like being endorsed by the FDB's.
Or the NRA
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Or the NRA
Touche! :aok
the NRA sends me mail and asks me to cast my vote on who they beleive is gonna fight for my second ammendment rights. but its still on me whom I choose.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
vouchers are the only means in place in an attempt to hold schools/teachers accountable for their performance or lack there of
oh and the voucher is really the parents money returned in the form of a "refund" for poor services rendered, so you can keep your 1st admen whine ..
Make up your mind...is the voucher an attempt to hold accountability to teachers, or is it a refund? Please, find an argument, and stick to it.
Given your childish replies, it's pretty clear that public education has failed you as well. Answering to your adolescent remarks no longer interests me. You don't offend me, as my opinon of you has gotten so low it's impossible for me to have any less respect for you than I already have.
I prefer to keep my 1st Amemendment, and I'll whine like an NRA member trying to keep his M2 .50 caliber Rav-4 mounted "deer rifle" if anyone tyries to take it away from me. :lol
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Touche! :aok
the NRA sends me mail and asks me to cast my vote on who they beleive is gonna fight for my second ammendment rights. but its still on me whom I choose.
Gunslingr for not pandering to special interests and voting your conscience.
I would love to disband or restrusture the teachers' union contract and give autonomy to principals to control staffing at their own schools. I think that they have in fact become too powerful, at the expense of the students.
Hopwever, throwing the baby out with the bathwater never solves anything, and the voucher system, IMO, does exacvtly that.
-
dang RTail you really hurt my feelings there - LOL
ya tard, why did you go and make it personal, I hadn't said anything like:
"Given your childish replies, it's pretty clear that public education has failed you as well. Answering to your adolescent remarks no longer interests me. You don't offend me, as my opinon of you has gotten so low it's impossible for me to have any less respect for you than I already have."
I think you owe me one of those liberal apologies ... come on boy, I might accept it...
have I told you how impressed I am with your list of firearms in your sig? - LOL
ps
the voucher is both
-
Originally posted by wklink
you called me a Neo-Nazi
??????????
Well, if we are already funding students to go to Georgetown or Notre dame, why create vouchers in the first place?
vouchers are for primary and secondary schools, which is where this argument is focused on. Higher education funding, such as FA, are in a different category. Furthermore, student loans are repaid by the student.
You know, if you managed to keep your cool I think you would make for far more compelling arguments...find your emotional center, and don't let the anger fuel your arguments, it's unbecoming... :D
-
Maybe, but blanket statements like saying anyone for school vouchers must have some kind of hidden agenda supporting Klan and Nazi schools really gets into my craw.
My grandfather slid down the side of the USS Lexington in 1942 fighting against that kind of thought pattern. I lost family members in every war since the war of independence and I don't like, even by inference, being associated with such a group. There was no such thing as private education in the Soviet Union yet making a statement that those on this board that support funding only public education secretly want such a system would be just as irresponsible.
Maybe you need to remember that words mean things and that whether you are 'kidding' or not some folks don't take it that way. I'm sorry but if you fling a **** into a town hall meeting some folks are going to be irritated by the smell.
You want to debate, fine, keep the 'all blah blah are blah blah' stuff out of it. We're trying to be open minded and accepting right?
-
redtail.. I attended both public and provate schools. I was tested as mediocre in the private school and when I went to public school (we moved and it was too expensive for my parents to attend the private school)... when I was tested in the public school I was two full grades ahead in learning.
my son and daughter have both attended public schools and In the tradition of Jefferson... I would love to have opted out of them because I was being forced to pay fot indoctinization that I did not believe in. I couldn't because I was deprived of my rights...Your teacher is wrong was a pretty common statetment around our house. Parent teacher nights could be interesting. The teachers were liberal mushheads.
as for any public school doing better than a private one... there may be one or two out there but with zillions of em to choose frome then some upperclass neighborhood somewhere with parents having a strong financial hold on the school is bound to do well. The norm is lousy schools that cost way too much and you know it.
In LA county 87% of the "hard working" teachers are pure administrative. private schoold are about 5%. what are you arfraid of?
I am afraid of one group... the NEA controlling the majority of of our kids growing and formative years. to say that they don't have a political agenda in one breath and then to see em constantly cast their vote for a single party in another....
Oh... I am glad to see you think I am "half right" on most things... I have to admit... without doing a search, that I don't believe I have ever seen you be right about anything. Not even that thrilled with your choices of firearms.
lazs