|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 02 2013 16:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 16:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. The original deal was for spending cuts exclusively. Tax hikes were never on the table until there was an attempt at resolving both the Bush tax cut expiration and the sequester issues together - the grand bargain. That failed. Now it's back to the sequester or some other package of $1.2T+ in cuts. Obama can try to change that, but it's an extremely hard sell as Republicans will (rightfully) see it as an attempt at reneging on the original deal (because it is). http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/02/woodward_misses_the_mark.phpFirstly, there was no original deal, or original understanding that the sequester were to be replaced with spending cuts only. Secondly, even if there were, so what?
So what? Now we have the sequester...
|
On March 02 2013 16:20 BirdKiller wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 15:54 jellyjello wrote:On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. Wow, just wow. Are there so many who are so blinded by Obama's campaign style of politics that they are failing so hard at what is actually taking place in the US politics? This isn't about closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates. The end state of the Obama white house is to destroy the GOP and retake the house, period. This sequester bullshit is, and has been, nothing more than a tool which both sides could use to play blame games with. Obama isn't interested in making a deal with the GOP or saving this country's economy, at least not yet; there already is a bi-partisan proposal from the "gang of six" which was completely rejected by this president. He's only using this moment as a political power grab and he will be happy as long as he can picture this as if it's somehow GOP's fault even though it was his idea to begin with, because it will give the democrats the leverage and momentum going into the election period. Besides the conspiracy theory of what Obama is planning as opposed to the theory that Republicans will do anything to oppose Obama... 1. There has been no "gang of six" proposal in 2013 to avert the sequestration. That was back in 2011 which was... 2. bipartisan in the sense that 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans forged it, but... 3. Democrats and Republicans both hated it President Obama actually praised the plan and was in support of it, though the backlash from liberal Democrats would have it bittersweet: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59377.htmlI would love to know where you got the idea that Obama rejected the proposal.
The proposal from the gang of six was never intended to be out-right voted on and be placed into the law. It was simply a framework where both sides can initiate the bi-partisan work to resolve the debt problem. That's where most of you don't simply understand. It began with a good intention and finished its job of providing the starting point in which both sides can commence a serious negotiation. This was back in 2011 when the country still had time to put in time to negotiate for a real solution.
Both democrats and republicans didn't reject the proposals from the gang of six; they were willing to work within its framework. However, Obama flat out rejected the proposal and refused to work with republicans. Without Obama and WH's support, democrat controlled senate really can't do a jack shit. This is why you ever won't see a jack squat coming out of the senate, and that's why Boehner repeatedly have called for senate to act because Obama, as we found out in 2011, has no interest in saving the country's economy or solving her debt problem.
|
Btw, scary looking picture in the OP.
Anyone else notice Obama becoming bolder this year?
|
On March 02 2013 18:08 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 16:20 BirdKiller wrote:On March 02 2013 15:54 jellyjello wrote:On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. Wow, just wow. Are there so many who are so blinded by Obama's campaign style of politics that they are failing so hard at what is actually taking place in the US politics? This isn't about closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates. The end state of the Obama white house is to destroy the GOP and retake the house, period. This sequester bullshit is, and has been, nothing more than a tool which both sides could use to play blame games with. Obama isn't interested in making a deal with the GOP or saving this country's economy, at least not yet; there already is a bi-partisan proposal from the "gang of six" which was completely rejected by this president. He's only using this moment as a political power grab and he will be happy as long as he can picture this as if it's somehow GOP's fault even though it was his idea to begin with, because it will give the democrats the leverage and momentum going into the election period. Besides the conspiracy theory of what Obama is planning as opposed to the theory that Republicans will do anything to oppose Obama... 1. There has been no "gang of six" proposal in 2013 to avert the sequestration. That was back in 2011 which was... 2. bipartisan in the sense that 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans forged it, but... 3. Democrats and Republicans both hated it President Obama actually praised the plan and was in support of it, though the backlash from liberal Democrats would have it bittersweet: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59377.htmlI would love to know where you got the idea that Obama rejected the proposal. The proposal from the gang of six was never intended to be out-right voted on and be placed into the law. It was simply a framework where both sides can initiate the bi-partisan work to resolve the debt problem. That's where most of you don't simply understand. It began with a good intention and finished its job of providing the starting point in which both sides can commence a serious negotiation. This was back in 2011 when the country still had time to put in time to negotiate for a real solution. Both democrats and republicans didn't reject the proposals from the gang of six; they were willing to work within its framework. However, Obama flat out rejected the proposal and refused to work with republicans. Without Obama and WH's support, democrat controlled senate really can't do a jack shit. This is why you ever won't see a jack squat coming out of the senate, and that's why Boehner repeatedly have called for senate to act because Obama, as we found out in 2011, has no interest in saving the country's economy or solving her debt problem.
I say again, where is your source that Obama rejected the proposal? I provided mine, and I can certainly provide more reports that Obama supported it if you want, but regardless, I'm interested to see where you got the idea Obama rejected it.
|
On March 02 2013 18:08 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 16:20 BirdKiller wrote:On March 02 2013 15:54 jellyjello wrote:On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. Wow, just wow. Are there so many who are so blinded by Obama's campaign style of politics that they are failing so hard at what is actually taking place in the US politics? This isn't about closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates. The end state of the Obama white house is to destroy the GOP and retake the house, period. This sequester bullshit is, and has been, nothing more than a tool which both sides could use to play blame games with. Obama isn't interested in making a deal with the GOP or saving this country's economy, at least not yet; there already is a bi-partisan proposal from the "gang of six" which was completely rejected by this president. He's only using this moment as a political power grab and he will be happy as long as he can picture this as if it's somehow GOP's fault even though it was his idea to begin with, because it will give the democrats the leverage and momentum going into the election period. Besides the conspiracy theory of what Obama is planning as opposed to the theory that Republicans will do anything to oppose Obama... 1. There has been no "gang of six" proposal in 2013 to avert the sequestration. That was back in 2011 which was... 2. bipartisan in the sense that 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans forged it, but... 3. Democrats and Republicans both hated it President Obama actually praised the plan and was in support of it, though the backlash from liberal Democrats would have it bittersweet: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59377.htmlI would love to know where you got the idea that Obama rejected the proposal. The proposal from the gang of six was never intended to be out-right voted on and be placed into the law. It was simply a framework where both sides can initiate the bi-partisan work to resolve the debt problem. That's where most of you don't simply understand. It began with a good intention and finished its job of providing the starting point in which both sides can commence a serious negotiation. This was back in 2011 when the country still had time to put in time to negotiate for a real solution. Both democrats and republicans didn't reject the proposals from the gang of six; they were willing to work within its framework. However, Obama flat out rejected the proposal and refused to work with republicans. Without Obama and WH's support, democrat controlled senate really can't do a jack shit. This is why you ever won't see a jack squat coming out of the senate, and that's why Boehner repeatedly have called for senate to act because Obama, as we found out in 2011, has no interest in saving the country's economy or solving her debt problem.
Obama wanted a right-wing grand bargain which would have been awful, which ironically was prevented by the Tea Partiers because it was the kind of socialist junk a commie traitor like Reagan or Nixon would have proposed.
|
On March 02 2013 18:08 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 16:20 BirdKiller wrote:On March 02 2013 15:54 jellyjello wrote:On March 02 2013 15:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 13:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As if Boehner could even get this to pass the house without, once more, Democratic support. Just last week he said closing loopholes were tax increases now this... Just waiting for the Club for Growth to target him. WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner, emerging Friday from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, declared that higher taxes won't be part of any deal to solve the country's budget mess.
No closer to a deal to undo $85 billion in automatic spending cuts taking effect Friday, Boehner said the House will move ahead next week with legislation to keep the government running beyond March. He said he hopes the country won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown.
Boehner's office, in a statement describing the meeting, said he and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Obama they're willing to close loopholes but only to lower taxes overall, not to replace spending cuts. Obama and congressional leaders agreed that Congress should pass a bill funding the government while they keep working on a way to replace the spending cuts, Boehner's office said.
His office said Boehner told the president the best way to resolve the cuts now would be through the regular lawmaking process, rather than congressional leaders cutting a deal with Obama. Source Boehner's refusal to raise taxes is basically the main cause of gridlock on the sequester. He claims that Obama already got $0.6 trillion in tax hikes during the fiscal cliff showdown, so tax hikes are off the table. But wasn't one of the Republican theories back then that it's OK to vote for the fiscal cliff deal because the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts meant they weren't voting for a tax hike? I also don't understand why the White House doesn't counter this argument, which Republicans continually make, by pointing out that Boehner got over $1 trillion in spending cuts in the 2011 debt ceiling showdown; So spending cuts are off the table? Moreover, Obama isn't asking for tax rate increases, he's asking that closing tax loopholes be one part of an overall deal to replace the sequester. During the fiscal cliff showdown, Republicans were saying that tax loopholes are bad and should be closed, suddenly it's more important to protect those loopholes than it is to stop these cuts hurting the economic recovery and the American people. The media usually has a tendency to amplify small issues and personal sob stories. In this case, such amplification will be helpful in bringing political pressure on Congress to replace or get rid of the sequester, as well as to raise awareness on the sequester, which polls find many Americans aren't paying any attention to. Republicans have an image problem. Polls continue to find that Americans will mostly blame them for this. So I think they'll eventually give in and cut a deal that saves face, probably within the next 3 months. Wow, just wow. Are there so many who are so blinded by Obama's campaign style of politics that they are failing so hard at what is actually taking place in the US politics? This isn't about closing tax loopholes or raising tax rates. The end state of the Obama white house is to destroy the GOP and retake the house, period. This sequester bullshit is, and has been, nothing more than a tool which both sides could use to play blame games with. Obama isn't interested in making a deal with the GOP or saving this country's economy, at least not yet; there already is a bi-partisan proposal from the "gang of six" which was completely rejected by this president. He's only using this moment as a political power grab and he will be happy as long as he can picture this as if it's somehow GOP's fault even though it was his idea to begin with, because it will give the democrats the leverage and momentum going into the election period. Besides the conspiracy theory of what Obama is planning as opposed to the theory that Republicans will do anything to oppose Obama... 1. There has been no "gang of six" proposal in 2013 to avert the sequestration. That was back in 2011 which was... 2. bipartisan in the sense that 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans forged it, but... 3. Democrats and Republicans both hated it President Obama actually praised the plan and was in support of it, though the backlash from liberal Democrats would have it bittersweet: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59377.htmlI would love to know where you got the idea that Obama rejected the proposal. The proposal from the gang of six was never intended to be out-right voted on and be placed into the law. It was simply a framework where both sides can initiate the bi-partisan work to resolve the debt problem. That's where most of you don't simply understand. It began with a good intention and finished its job of providing the starting point in which both sides can commence a serious negotiation. This was back in 2011 when the country still had time to put in time to negotiate for a real solution. Both democrats and republicans didn't reject the proposals from the gang of six; they were willing to work within its framework. However, Obama flat out rejected the proposal and refused to work with republicans. Without Obama and WH's support, democrat controlled senate really can't do a jack shit. This is why you ever won't see a jack squat coming out of the senate, and that's why Boehner repeatedly have called for senate to act because Obama, as we found out in 2011, has no interest in saving the country's economy or solving her debt problem.
In July 2011, the Gang of Six proposed a solution to the US debt ceiling crisis. The compromise would reduce future increases in the deficit by USD $3.7 trillion over ten years and was praised by President Barack Obama.[7][8] The deficit figure quoted represents an estimated reduction in the continued growth of the debt. It also has been met with criticism from congressional Republicans[9][10] and conservative groups for being, according to The Heritage Foundation, "heavy on tax hikes and promises of spending cuts, but devoid of details on how to make the sweeping transformative changes needed to solve our debt and spending crises."[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Six#National_debt.2C_2011
|
On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending.
Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? (+ business, gender, politics, journalism, psychology, education, food, music, literature, sex, games, religion, parenting, advertising, sociology, race, language, science, and so on - there's certainly enough material for an entire course there and it could honestly be the most important thing you'll ever learn)
|
On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? (+ business, gender, politics, journalism, psychology, education, food, music, literature, sex, games, religion, parenting, advertising, sociology, race, language, science, and so on - there's certainly enough material for an entire course there and it could honestly be the most important thing you'll ever learn)
yes, it would be wonderful, but then it's much harder to sell them things
This is what you are supposed to be learning in those English classes that everyone seems to think are 'useless' because they don't help you make iphone games, which is a 'useful' thing...
|
On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective?
Republicans disagree.
"Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."
In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”
|
On March 02 2013 08:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Conservative advocacy group Club For Growth shows no signs of slowing down its efforts to purge the GOP of alleged moderates, launching a new campaign targeting Republican members of the 113th Congress.
The group’s new site, PrimaryMyCongressman.com, is designed “to raise awareness of Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who are currently serving in safe Republican seats,” according to a press release announcing its debut this week.
The first round of targets are Reps. Mike Simpson (R-ID), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Steve Palazzo (R-MS), Martha Roby (R-AL), Larry Buchson (R-IN), Renee Ellmers, (R-NC), and Aaron Schock (R-IL).
“Big government liberals inhabit the Democratic Party, but they are far too common within the Republican Party as well,” Chris Chocola, president of Club For Growth, said in a statement on Wednesday. “The Republicans helped pass billions of dollars in tax increases and they have repeatedly voted against efforts by fiscal conservatives to limit government. PrimaryMyCongressman.com will serve as a tool to hold opponents of economic freedom and limited government accountable for their actions.”
Needless to say, the group’s new targets aren’t too pleased with their newfound label. Schock’s office said in a statement that “Club for Growth’s endgame is for Congress to become even more strident and gridlocked.” Chocola responded with a letter labeling him a a “pro-stimulus spending, pro-ObamaCare, pro-debt limit increase, pro-tax increase, pro-labor ‘Republican.’” Source
Well, on the bright side, the faster this happens, the faster the Republican party completely collapses, which, if we all pray hard enough, might drive the government to do some radical overhauling of the electoral process, maybe driving us away from this ridiculous two party system?
Nah. Our government will just be the joke of humanity for the next several generations.
|
On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."Show nested quote +In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”
And southerners get offended when we give them shit for how ass-backwards their society is. It's like it's an entirely different nation down there; it's like they aren't even in the liberal, developed world. So much for the freedom those hypocritical bastards yell about all day long.
|
On March 03 2013 06:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.” And southerners get offended when we give them shit for how ass-backwards their society is. It's like it's an entirely different nation down there; it's like they aren't even in the liberal, developed world. So much for the freedom those hypocritical bastards yell about all day long.
There's more than one side to the south. My family's been southerners for generations, and I'm the craziest leftist on this board (not that everyone in my family agrees with me...). Being a southerner is a huge part of who I am, in my own weird way. There's a lot of really beautiful stuff about the south and southern culture that people don't understand. "Such is the duality of the southern thing."
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +
Ain't about my pistol
Ain't about my boots
Ain't about no northern drives
Ain't about my southern roots
Ain't about my guitars, ain't about my big old amps
"It ain't rained in weeks, but the weather sure feels damp"
Ain't about excuses or alibis
Ain't about no cotton fields or cotton picking lies
Ain't about the races, the crying shame
To the fucking rich man all poor people look the same
Don't get me wrong It just ain't right
May not look strong, but I ain't afraid to fight
If you want to live another day
Stay out the way of the southern thing
Ain't about no hatred better raise a glass
It's a little about some rebels but it ain't about the past
Ain't about no foolish pride, Ain't about no flag
Hate's the only thing that my truck would want to drag
You think I'm dumb, maybe not too bright
You wonder how I sleep at night
Proud of the glory, stare down the shame
Duality of the southern thing
My Great Great Granddad had a hole in his side
He used to tell the story to the family Christmas night
Got shot at Shiloh, thought he'd die alone
From a Yankee bullet, less than thirty miles from home
Ain't no plantations in my family tree
Did NOT believe in slavery, thought that all men should be free
"But, who are these soldiers marching through my land?"
His bride could hear the cannons and she worried about her man
I heard the story as it was passed down
About guts and glory and Rebel stands
Four generations, a whole lot has changed
Robert E. Lee
Martin Luther King
We've come a long way rising from the flame
Stay out the way of the southern thing
I grew up in North Alabama, back in the 1970's, when dinosaurs still roamed the earth…
Speaking of course of the Three Great Alabama Icons… George Wallace, Bear Bryant and Ronnie Van Zant… Now Ronnie Van Zant wasn't from Alabama, he was from Florida… He was a huge Neil Young fan… But in the tradition of Merle Haggard writin' Okie from Muskogee to tell his dad's point of view about the hippies 'n Vietnam, Ronnie felt that the other side of the story should be told. And Neil Young always claimed that Sweet Home Alabama was one of his favorite songs. And legend has it that he was an honorary pall bearer at Ronnie's funeral… such is the Duality of the Southern Thing… And Bear Bryant wore a cool lookin' red checkered hat and won football games… and there's few things more loved in Alabama than football and the men who know how to win at it… So when the Bear would come to town, there'd be a parade. And me, I was one a' them pussy boys… cause I hated football, so I got a guitar… but a guitar was a poor substitute for a football with the girls in my high school… So my band hit the road… and we didn't play no Skynyrd either… I came of age rebellin' against the music in my high school parkin' lot… It wasn't till years later after leavin' the South for a while that I came to appreciate and understand the whole Skynyrd thing and its misunderstood glory… I left the South and learned how different people's perceptions of the Southern Thing was from what I'd seen in my life… Which leads us to George Wallace… Now Wallace was for all practical purposes the Governor of Alabama from 1962 until 1986… Once, when a law prevented him from succeeding himself he ran his wife Lerline in his place and she won by a landslide… He's most famous as the belligerent racist voice of the segregationist South… Standing in the doorways of schools and waging a political war against a Federal Government that he decried as hypocritical… And Wallace had started out as a lawyer and a judge with a very progressive and humanitarian track record for a man of his time. But he lost his first bid for governor in 1958 by hedging on the race issue, against a man who spoke out against integration… Wallace ran again in '62 as a staunch segregationist and won big, and for the next decade spoke out loudly… He accused Kennedy and King of being communists. He was constantly on national news, representing the “good‿ people of Alabama… And you know race was only an issue on TV in the house that I grew up in… Wallace was viewed as a man from another time and place… And when I first ventured out of the South, I was shocked at how strongly Wallace was associated with Alabama and its people… Ya know racism is a worldwide problem and it's been since the beginning of recorded history… and it ain't just white and black… But thanks to George Wallace, it's always a little more convenient to play it with a Southern accent. And bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd attempted to show another side of the South… One that certainly exists, but few saw beyond the rebel flag… And this applies not only to their critics and detractors, but also from their fans and followers. So for a while, when Neil Young would come to town, he'd get death-threats down in Alabama… Ironically, in 1971, after a particularly racially charged campaign, Wallace began backpedaling, and he opened up Alabama politics to minorities at a rate faster than most Northern states or the Federal Government. And Wallace spent the rest of his life trying to explain away his racist past, and in 1982 won his last term in office with over 90% of the black vote… Such is the Duality of the Southern Thing… And George Wallace died back in '98 and he's in Hell now, not because he's a racist… His track record as a judge and his late-life quest for redemption make a good argument for his being, at worst, no worse than most white men of his generation, North or South… But because of his blind ambition and his hunger for votes, he turned a blind eye to the suffering of Black America. And he became a pawn in the fight against the Civil Rights cause… For
tunately for him, the Devil is also a Southerner…
|
On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."Show nested quote +In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”
Yeah I wouldn't want Texans teaching kids how to think either :p
Sorry Sam - I couldn't resist!
|
On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."Show nested quote +In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.”
The point is that the right-wing oppose socio-engineering through education....I don't see what's wrong with that. They promote parents actually parenting and raising their kids the way they would like because the children are THEIR children, not the states. You guys make it sound like they are completely against education, instead they are for education from the right source - the parents. They promote a private school system where the parents are able to choose what their kids will learn. They don't believe that people who don't believe in Judeo-Christian principles should be taught against their beliefs either. As much as a lot of people hate to see this, there's a lot of people disagree with you and you can't just force their children out of their beliefs through socio-engineering of public school systems they're forced into. I am a Christian man who fears (especially in my country) this very thing
|
On March 03 2013 06:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.” And southerners get offended when we give them shit for how ass-backwards their society is. It's like it's an entirely different nation down there; it's like they aren't even in the liberal, developed world. So much for the freedom those hypocritical bastards yell about all day long.
Ouch. If it is not what I like, than it is not right. Amiright?
|
On March 03 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.” The point is that the right-wing oppose socio-engineering through education....I don't see what's wrong with that. They promote parents actually parenting and raising their kids the way they would like because the children are THEIR children, not the states. You guys make it sound like they are completely against education, instead they are for education from the right source - the parents. They promote a private school system where the parents are able to choose what their kids will learn. They don't believe that people who don't believe in Judeo-Christian principles should be taught against their beliefs either. As much as a lot of people hate to see this, there's a lot of people disagree with you and you can't just force their children out of their beliefs through socio-engineering of public school systems they're forced into. I am a Christian man who fears (especially in my country) this very thing
And when the parents are dumb as bricks?
|
On March 03 2013 08:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.” The point is that the right-wing oppose socio-engineering through education....I don't see what's wrong with that. They promote parents actually parenting and raising their kids the way they would like because the children are THEIR children, not the states. You guys make it sound like they are completely against education, instead they are for education from the right source - the parents. They promote a private school system where the parents are able to choose what their kids will learn. They don't believe that people who don't believe in Judeo-Christian principles should be taught against their beliefs either. As much as a lot of people hate to see this, there's a lot of people disagree with you and you can't just force their children out of their beliefs through socio-engineering of public school systems they're forced into. I am a Christian man who fears (especially in my country) this very thing And when the parents are dumb as bricks?
In whos opinion are they dumb as bricks? in what type of category?
The whole point is that you take that as an inevitability. Sometimes children will be raised with a sense of morality that you do not agree with. As long as they are not breaking the law, that is something that society should accept as a price for freedom
|
On March 03 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.” The point is that the right-wing oppose socio-engineering through education....I don't see what's wrong with that. They promote parents actually parenting and raising their kids the way they would like because the children are THEIR children, not the states. You guys make it sound like they are completely against education, instead they are for education from the right source - the parents. They promote a private school system where the parents are able to choose what their kids will learn. They don't believe that people who don't believe in Judeo-Christian principles should be taught against their beliefs either. As much as a lot of people hate to see this, there's a lot of people disagree with you and you can't just force their children out of their beliefs through socio-engineering of public school systems they're forced into. I am a Christian man who fears (especially in my country) this very thing
I supposed the world will have to deal with this way of thinking, but I wish it didn't exist. The supreme right of the parents to indoctrinate their kids in outdated customs, archaic beliefs, bad science, hostile attitudes, and so on.
Certain strains of rightwing thinking are obsessed with traditional family values, which is a front for control over women and children, i.e. preserving the tyranny of the household. There is the misconception that people who vote for the republican party vote against their interests, because the republican party hasn't demonstrated that they care about anyone other than plutocrats, but it's not true: a lot of men feel that feminism and other modern ways of thinking directly threaten their interests and their place in society, and this is a lot more strongly felt than whether taxes will be 25% of 27%.
This is why children can't be brought up to be independently minded, they might question the status quo and not 'know their place' anymore.
|
On March 03 2013 09:01 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 03 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.” The point is that the right-wing oppose socio-engineering through education....I don't see what's wrong with that. They promote parents actually parenting and raising their kids the way they would like because the children are THEIR children, not the states. You guys make it sound like they are completely against education, instead they are for education from the right source - the parents. They promote a private school system where the parents are able to choose what their kids will learn. They don't believe that people who don't believe in Judeo-Christian principles should be taught against their beliefs either. As much as a lot of people hate to see this, there's a lot of people disagree with you and you can't just force their children out of their beliefs through socio-engineering of public school systems they're forced into. I am a Christian man who fears (especially in my country) this very thing And when the parents are dumb as bricks? In whos opinion are they dumb as bricks? in what type of category?
Like fail out of high school not due to laziness but due to inability category. The grade equivalent would be around D, D- average.
|
On March 03 2013 09:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 09:01 Dawski wrote:On March 03 2013 08:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 03 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On March 03 2013 06:06 kwizach wrote:On March 03 2013 04:38 Grumbels wrote:On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
edit: this is just it. The whole notion of "student debt" gives the impression that "education" is an investment into future earning potential. That's not what education is, that's what training is. Education is what you need in order to be a good citizen of a democratic society and a well-developed human being. It's not something you have that lets you make more money in the future. So the entire notion of education as an investment is ass-backwards. that's why it needs to be free - because otherwise only rich people can have it, and that defeats the entire notion of a democratic society, at which point we really should just stop pretending. Yes. I don't know how the situation is today at schools in the United States, but wouldn't it be wonderful if students received extensive training in looking at media from a critical perspective? Republicans disagree. "Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really."In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Yes, you read that right. The party opposes the teaching of “higher order thinking skills” because it believes the purpose is to challenge a student’s “fixed beliefs” and undermine “parental authority.”
It opposes, among other things, early childhood education, sex education, and multicultural education, but supports “school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded.” The point is that the right-wing oppose socio-engineering through education....I don't see what's wrong with that. They promote parents actually parenting and raising their kids the way they would like because the children are THEIR children, not the states. You guys make it sound like they are completely against education, instead they are for education from the right source - the parents. They promote a private school system where the parents are able to choose what their kids will learn. They don't believe that people who don't believe in Judeo-Christian principles should be taught against their beliefs either. As much as a lot of people hate to see this, there's a lot of people disagree with you and you can't just force their children out of their beliefs through socio-engineering of public school systems they're forced into. I am a Christian man who fears (especially in my country) this very thing And when the parents are dumb as bricks? In whos opinion are they dumb as bricks? in what type of category? Like fail out of high school not due to laziness but due to inability category. The grade equivalent would be around D, D- average.
Does that make the person any less of a human being? Any less of the ability to be happy?
Again it's the price of freedom. Like a poster above me said - you can wish it wasn't that way, but you can't change it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
