|
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. |
United States43469 Posts
On September 26 2015 14:28 Nyxisto wrote:
the real question is, can you participate in the kentucky derby without actually being a horse?
I looked it up. He would have to be able to trace his ancestry back to one of three Arabian horses imported to England. So maybe? We've not seen his long form birth certificate.
|
On September 26 2015 20:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 14:28 Nyxisto wrote:
the real question is, can you participate in the kentucky derby without actually being a horse? I looked it up. He would have to be able to trace his ancestry back to one of three Arabian horses imported to England. So maybe? We've not seen his long form birth certificate.
Well Trump's sister has been a federal and circuit court judge for several decades so having his brother enter as speaker would be all that outlandish.
|
On September 27 2015 00:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 20:58 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 14:28 Nyxisto wrote:
the real question is, can you participate in the kentucky derby without actually being a horse? I looked it up. He would have to be able to trace his ancestry back to one of three Arabian horses imported to England. So maybe? We've not seen his long form birth certificate. Well Trump's sister has been a federal and circuit court judge for several decades so having his brother enter as speaker would be all that outlandish.
Yup. He picked up all the knowledge through sibling osmosis.
|
Mark Zuckerberg shouldnt quit his day job. He thought he could fix the public school system by throwing money at it, and lost 200 million in the process. Money isnt the solution to education, its the problem.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerbergs-100-million-donation-155608055.html
In 2010, Mark Zuckerberg donated $100 million to Newark, New Jersey's failing public-school system with the intention of turning around the schools in five years.
The goals Zuckerberg set out to achieve — to enact a number of reforms that would make Newark a model city for education reform — are widely seen as a failure, journalist Dale Russakoff told Business Insider.
So where exactly did that $100 million go if the turnaround was a failure?
Russakoff mapped the money trail in her new book "The Prize: Who's in Charge of America's Schools," which tracked the five years since Zuckerberg's donation.
The $100 million from Zuckerberg actually became $200 million under the agreement other sources would match his contribution. Here's where that money went:
Labor and contract costs: $89.2 million
Charter schools: $57.6 million
Consultants: $21 million
Various local initiatives: $24.6 million
The total committed funds comes to less than $200 million as of January 2015, as some funding decisions are still pending.
One of the biggest failures in Zuckerberg's plan to reform Newark schools was the renegotiated teachers' contracts.
Zuckerberg envisioned the teacher contract reform to be a centerpiece of the reform and contributed $50 million — half of his total donation — to go to working on that cause.
Zuckerberg wanted to be able to create more flexibility in teacher contracts to reward high-performing teachers and to fire teachers with poor records of student achievement.
But those types of protections are determined by New Jersey law, and Zuckerberg couldn't simply come in and change the rules without going through the state Legislature to make the changes.
Instead, the opposite occurred. Chris Cerf, the New Jersey commissioner of education at the time, worked with the Legislature and was able to negotiate some new accountability measures in teacher contracts.
But the teachers' union only agreed upon those measures if the seniority protections remained intact.
"The seniority protections became automatically a part of this new contract in Newark, which was supposed to be, in the words that the reformers were using, a transformational contract that would become a model for how to reform school districts all across the country, and it was not," Russakoff said in an interview with NPR.
The second biggest piece of Zuckerberg's donation — $25 million — went to charter schools in Newark. For students who were able to attend one of the excellent charter schools in Newark, this was beneficial.
But the expansion of charters in Newark also sent the city into upheaval due to the implementation of the plan. Essentially, schools were consolidated and rearranged to downsize districts.
It was done quickly and without input from parents or local administrators, who could have provided guidance on how the changes would play out among the community.
Ultimately, it was a massive change from the old system parents were used to..
Rather than being designated a school close by the child's residence, parents had to go online and chose the school they wanted. An algorithm eventually decided the school district a student would attend.
This was a big change for a school system where most kids walked to school. Further, Russakoff explained, it could put students in dangerous situations.
"When a school is closed, children had to walk through very dangerous territory, sometimes through gang territory, through drug-dealing neighborhoods," Russakoff told NPR. "And none of that was kind of vetted in advance to see what can we do for these kids to make sure they're safe."
Finally, $20 million of Zuckerberg's donation went to consultants who took care of management of the projects. While not technically a failure, this contributed to the poor optics of the plan.
Consultants were making $1,000 a day while the local teachers and administrators did not see any of the additional funds in merit pay that they were promised.
We reached out to Facebook to give Zuckerberg an opportunity to comment, and we will update the post if we hear back.
|
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too.
|
On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too.
Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.”
Money has no impact on a child's education.
|
Look at what they bought though. Luxury items, the argument just from what you quoted could be said to be "we throw piles of money at it....but we have no idea how to spend it on stuff that will actually improve things".
|
On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education.
Just because money didn't help them doesn't mean it was because money doesn't help. Obviously they choose Kansas City as their trial area because it had some large issues to begin with, and I doubt any of the money went towards fixing those issues.
Giving someone an amazing and expensive guitar won't motivate them to play it if they don't give a fuck about guitars to begin with. The same issue applies here, in that improving the conditions of the school won't matter if the students and community don't care about the schools and learning to begin with.
In the Zuckerberg case, it was because they misused the money and caused a bunch of other issues. Simply put, no, throwing money at the problem doesn't help, but that doesn't mean money can't help the problem if used properly.
|
It does indeed look more like the issue is misspending of money. It seems necessary that it be possible for money to have some effect on education, though it might well not have as strong an effect as one might suspect.
It's quite common for educational reforms to be done more by politicians than by experts who actually study education and what makes it work.
|
On September 27 2015 02:37 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Money without context isn't the singular problem or the singular solution to education. One of the problems is the mismanagement of money with respect to education though, and one of the solutions is a solid infrastructure for schools (books, computers, other resources, etc.) which does require money. There are many other problems and solutions to education too. Money is the root of the problem and the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment proves it. “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.” Little house on the prairie could have produced better results than that, but I digress. For more evidence that money doesn’t solve problems in education just take a gander at the State of California. The California Department of Education reports: “California spends more money per student than many other states in the country.” Simultaneously, the Los Angeles Times reports: “Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2012 failed to complete their education.” Money has no impact on a child's education.
And yet almost none of that is related to academics. Those things were probably useful in other (more subjective, less assessment-based, more peripheral) ways that can be categorized as educational (or extracurricular), but if you're looking to get students to understand math and English and science and history better, there are a lot more standard resources to invest in, inside the classroom.
As previously mentioned, it's a mismanagement of funds.
How do I (and all other educational researchers) know this? Because the #1 strongest predictor for a student's academic success is their socioeconomic status. As in, how much money their family has and can put towards a child's education. Of course, the money has to be used smartly, and money can be used both inside and outside of schools to further education, but it does go a long way.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term.
So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
|
On September 27 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term. So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
By black Republican(s) you mean Ben Carson, right? Probably because Obama is an evil socialist who's weak on supporting Biblical authority, like how we should deal with gay marriage in a secularist country.
To be fair, you could easily be inundated with quotes and comments and votes that would clearly depict Republican politicians, Fox News pundits, and other conservative figures as incredibly racist, especially against Obama.
It doesn't require a narrow, biased worldview to see that. Unfortunately, it gives a bad name to the laymen who are conservative but not bigots.
|
On September 27 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term. So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
The power of media spin
|
On September 27 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term. So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists?
One day can we stop the idiocy that is thinking black people can't be racist to other black people...? It's just such an incredibly ignorant thing to say, at some point the shame of saying such ignorant things should discourage people from saying them right?
|
On September 27 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term. So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists? One day can we stop the idiocy that is thinking black people can't be racist to other black people...? It's just such an incredibly ignorant thing to say, at some point the shame of saying such ignorant things should discourage people from saying them right?
This is like a typical Glenn Beck style answer...
"I'm not saying Black Republicans are racist against Obama. I'm saying black people can be racist against black people. You're the one that inferred my accusations."
|
On September 27 2015 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term. So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists? One day can we stop the idiocy that is thinking black people can't be racist to other black people...? It's just such an incredibly ignorant thing to say, at some point the shame of saying such ignorant things should discourage people from saying them right? This is like a typical Glenn Beck style answer... "I'm not saying Black Republicans are racist against Obama. I'm saying black people can be racist against black people. You're the one that inferred my accusations."
I think it's pretty obvious (at this point) who dislikes Obama for race related reasons, I don't think it's everyone and I don't think that's ever been anyone's assertion. It's a pretty big chunk of the right, that much is clear though.
So that's clear. As to the actual comment, I'm just sick of the "it's not ____ist if they do it to each other" nonsense. It's a childish understanding and we should be way past that by now.
|
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing.
|
On September 27 2015 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 27 2015 04:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2015 04:00 Cowboy64 wrote:On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term. So why do black Republicans dislike Obama and his agenda? How do they fit in to your narrow world-view that paints your opposition as racists? One day can we stop the idiocy that is thinking black people can't be racist to other black people...? It's just such an incredibly ignorant thing to say, at some point the shame of saying such ignorant things should discourage people from saying them right? This is like a typical Glenn Beck style answer... "I'm not saying Black Republicans are racist against Obama. I'm saying black people can be racist against black people. You're the one that inferred my accusations." I think it's pretty obvious (at this point) who dislikes Obama for race related reasons, I don't think it's everyone and I don't think that's ever been anyone's assertion. It's a pretty big chunk of the right, that much is clear though. So that's clear. As to the actual comment, I'm just sick of the "it's not ____ist if they do it to each other" nonsense. It's a childish understanding and we should be way past that by now.
Which, again, feels like typical Glenn Beck style argumentation. Make blanket accusations, say random generic "not everyone but enough", then dance around the subject enough that your points can't be countered on specific points because you never made them.
Edit: To be clear, there are plenty of republican candidates that can be specifically pointed out as being bigoted idiots.
But I find your style of posting just as obnoxious as Danglars or clutZ. You don't care about discussing anything, you care about carpet bombing your opinion and painting your "enemies" as caricatures.
|
On September 27 2015 05:32 zlefin wrote:
This (argument above) looks like one of those cases where each side has partially valid points, and by focusing on each sides partials, rather than the whole, each side feels they're right due to the tint of uh, I'm blanking on the term.
For me, I don't think the Republican establishment has any issue with Obama's race, they're against him because he's a Democrat politician; they really don't need any other reason than that to be against him.
I'm sure there are some individual racists out there of course; as to the degree of non-conscious bias, hard to say. Of course I don't meet normal people, so I may be wrong.
edit: good point GH, people changing what I need to write while I'm writing.
I dont believe Obama's opposition is just because he is black but I do wonder if it is not atleast a part. Is the unprecedented level of obstruction against Obama just because he is a Democrat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
