On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
well I did say it would be a higher proportion, obviously far from everyone as we can see here.
No no no no. Don't back down like that over Ron Paul. He is reasonable, and there is no good reason for a true conservative to find him unpalatable. He wants to do some drastic things to cut government, and sure that is scary to liberals, but he is the natural culmination of what the neo-neo-cons want to portray, which is small government. Neo-conservatism is not conservatism and the former is much more scary and disingenuous than the latter. If you really believe the things you say about about the free market, deregulation, sound money, etc. the. Ron Paul is your man. Nobody else on that stage is going to shrink government. I've said it a million times - if you like our foreign policy and gigantic military, and would coninue all these wars, then you aren't advocating a small federal government. And if you like all that and still refuse to raise any taxes then you definitely don't care about the defecit. Ron Paul is a real conservative, not a pretender. That's why I want him to win the nomination, so that the general election can be a real discussing about the role of government.
I disagree with Ron on plenty of things, particularly about environmental issues and religion. But all the fear-mongering about him betrays a lack of understanding, from both the left and the right. There are pages upon pages in this thread arguing over all the misinformation around Ron Paul. Bottom line, he's the genuine conservative and you shouldn't apologize for that.
@whitewing: your source doesn't back up any of the claims you made, and it does nothing to scare away conservatives. They like a consistent libertarian voting record.
And all this garbage about Christianity vs. Atheism needs to stop. That gets threads closed fast. And ffs at least cite sources when you say that Richard Dawkins wants to put people in jail for teaching their children Christianity. Whichever way you lean, we need some intellectual integrity around here.
I'd think the first part of intellectual integrity is simply to keep your mouth shut when you dont know anything about a topic? Anyone whos read or heard Richard dawkins has heard his diatribes about how raising a child religious is child abuse:
The only difference is he then contradictory winks and nudges the audience as he said he doesnt support it being against the law. So its child abuse- to which he considers worse than pedophilia by the way http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118 but just randomly shouldnt have any kind of legal ramification. Thats clear bullshit, hes just skipping around directly saying it because its bad PR. That or the man is utterly insane and thinks abusing your child in a worse manner than raping him should be totally kewl legally.
Don't presume to know what I do or do not know. It is common knowledge that Richard Dawkins is openly contemptuous of religion, and he makes strong normative arguments against religion all the time, and he is kind of a dick about it, but you claimed that he advocates throwing in jail parents who teach their kids religion. You didn't provide a source for your apparently false claim, and I didn't even call it false, I just said you need to provide a source for a statement that specific and dramatic. Instead you insulted the person asking for a source and you provided a video and an article that proves nothing of the sort. In the video he is refuting the exact claim that you are making (did you even watch it?), and in the article he is laying out an argument for the mental damage of teaching children about the horrors of Hell without saying anything about sending parents to jail. Neither prove your point.
In the words of Mitt Romney, nice try.
Edit: I want to be very clear that I do not want this thread to derail into another Atheism vs. Christianity debacle. It will just get the thread closed and people banned. I share blame in advancing the conversation, but I am merely requesting that people provide sources when making such outrageous claims. <2
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Firstly, let me just say that there are some things that I agree with Ron Paul on, about half of what he says I agree with. But in my opinion, half isn't good enough for a candidate that I want to elect to office.
Among other things, here are some of the other views he has that I strongly disagree with that aren't related to education. Note that I'm fairly moderate in general, I don't lean much in either direction.
"Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) Economic crisis demonstrates that Fed must come to an end. (Sep 2009) (This is ridiculously stupid) Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) Fed has ominous power with no oversight & no control. (Sep 2010) (This is patently untrue, although I can see why he'd think this if he wasn't truly informed on how it works) Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) (I'm hugely in favor of this and he voted No). Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) (Yeah, he's consistent on this) Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) Recycling consumes more energy than it saves. (Apr 2011) (Herp Derp, recycling isn't about conserving energy you dumbass >_<) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
I'll stop for now or this will just go on and on. This is not even half way down the page.
Thanks for replying with the source! I have not seen this site before, I'll have to spend some time looking through the info on ALL the candidates (I suggest everyone else to do the same, looks like a good collection of quotes/opinions of each candidate).
I Spoiler'd the long list because it doesn't really pertain to the earlier post, but I will say that there are things EACH candidate has said/done that I don't agree with as well, including Dr. Paul.
Looking back at your previous post, I'll try and match the source for each of your statements and give my opinion on the topic discussed. Here it goes:
1)He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all...
~ Most people know how Ron Paul feels about this issue, but here is the quote from the site you posted just in case: + Show Spoiler +
Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system. A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend. Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them? A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform. QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools. A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that. Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007
I talked about this in my first response as well. I don't think there is any confusion on this. I couldn't find the original 1988 quote (or misquote) that they were talking about, will edit this if I do find it later.
2) He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
~ This hit home for me as I think the Arts are always put on the back burner in American society and its a shame. Here is the quote: + Show Spoiler +
Private funds for arts work better than government funds
Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget. NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 75 Apr 1, 2008
So he doesn't like that the Government can direct $121 million in tax-payer funds into whatever "art" program they see fit and thinks that Private donations can support the arts just fine and backs it up with financial stats. I'm not 100% with him on this, but I can see his logic, which is more than I can say for a lot of other candidates. Art that is supported by the masses usually speaks to the masses (Hint: that's why they support it).
3) He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
~ Similar to #1, he doesn't want the Federal Govt / Dept of Education to have complete control over everything thing our children learn. He thinks that Teachers/Parents TOGETHER are the best educators for children. He's also not telling people to AVOID Public schools, but wants to encourage those parents that want to take a more active role in their children's education by either choosing the best school for their child, or teaching their child themselves.
Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax write off
It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we doubled the size of the Department of Education and we have No Child Left Behind. The teachers & the students don’t like it, and the quality of education hasn’t gone up while the cost of education has. We need to release the creative energy of the teachers at the local level. We can immediately give tax credits. I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system. Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007
I haven't read the bill he is speaking about, so I can't comment on that. However, I do agree with him about giving Parents tax credits/ write offs for home schooling. Most public schools in the US are understaffed and over populated with students. More homeschooling would help this problem and would save the tax-payers at the same time. Sounds good to me.
4) He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory"...
~ The wording of this statement is misleading. I found two quotes that go along with this topic: Quote the first: + Show Spoiler +
Present scientific facts that support creationism
Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Hunter] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
No surprises here. No harm in a teacher saying "Most scientist believe Evolution is how we came to be, however there are some alternative ideas as to how humans started out on this planet". Let the students decide what they believe. If its different that your opinion, tough.
Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject th notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can't this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become? The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn't mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.104-105 Apr 19, 2011
Once again, a major political "hot button" topic (thanks media!) that shouldn't be in politics to begin with. Leave this decision up to the teachers/parents, not the government.
5) He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
~ This statement is a little misleading. He's for supporting choices for students/parents when it comes to education, not supporting Christians/Christian schools OVER public schools/other religious schools.
Q: I’m 17, and I’m the product of school choice. In the public schools I repeated the 7th grade three times, because of my deficiency in math & English. My mother then sent me to New Generation, a Christian school. After one year, my math improved 5 grade levels, and my English improved 3. Will you support school choice for other students like me with similar tax-credit programs? HUCKABEE: Yes. TANCREDO: Yes. COX: Yes. BROWNBACK: Yes. PAUL: Yes. HUNTER: Yes. KEYES: Yes. Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
If you substitute the word "Hebrew" or "Islamic" for "Christian" in the above quote, I'd be willing to bet that Ron Paul would still say "Yes" and a lot of the other candidates would not. So parents get tax-credits for sending their kids to private schools because they have to pay tuition to attend those schools. Makes sense to me.
6) He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
~ Misleading statement # 3. The full quote is needed to understand what Ron Paul was supporting:
Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:
H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. Proposed Legislation: H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha) H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson) S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond) H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham) H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts) H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.) Source: H.J.Res.78 97-HJR78 on May 8, 1997
So basically, the state can't make you pray and the state can't prevent you from praying. Wanna grab your prayer mat and face Mecca during your lunch for a quick prayer? Go for it. Ron Paul isn't advocating every math class begins with an Our Father and a Hail Mary, he only wants people to have the freedom to worship/not worship as they choose when in public (Public schools). Free to make your own choice, wouldn't that be a hoot?
Good on you mate! This is precisely the intellectual integrity that I appreciate so much. You analyzed every claim, brought the sources, interpreted them, and all of a sudden this "radical" doesn't seem so radical anymore when you see the full context. I mean, the bill explicitly states that government cannot require anyone to pray or prescribe school prayers. Politics (left and right are guilty) has become too much about distorting these things into crazy sounding one-liners. I disagree with Ron about plenty of things, like I've said, but he definitely isn't a kook.
I completely agree with him about evolution not disproving God, and I've been saying it for years. Why does it have to be so incompatible with Christianity? As Baba Brinkman would say, why would God bother to design an albatross when natural selection already does such an excellent job?
edit: BUT for the record, "teaching the controversy" as if they are equal theories is not education. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory with volumes of evidence, not just some idea. Again, as Baba Brinkman would say, do you believe in gravity?
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
well I did say it would be a higher proportion, obviously far from everyone as we can see here.
No no no no. Don't back down like that over Ron Paul. He is reasonable, and there is no good reason for a true conservative to find him unpalatable. He wants to do some drastic things to cut government, and sure that is scary to liberals, but he is the natural culmination of what the neo-neo-cons want to portray, which is small government. Neo-conservatism is not conservatism and the former is much more scary and disingenuous than the latter. If you really believe the things you say about about the free market, deregulation, sound money, etc. the. Ron Paul is your man. Nobody else on that stage is going to shrink government. I've said it a million times - if you like our foreign policy and gigantic military, and would coninue all these wars, then you aren't advocating a small federal government. And if you like all that and still refuse to raise any taxes then you definitely don't care about the defecit. Ron Paul is a real conservative, not a pretender. That's why I want him to win the nomination, so that the general election can be a real discussing about the role of government.
I disagree with Ron on plenty of things, particularly about environmental issues and religion. But all the fear-mongering about him betrays a lack of understanding, from both the left and the right. There are pages upon pages in this thread arguing over all the misinformation around Ron Paul. Bottom line, he's the genuine conservative and you shouldn't apologize for that.
@whitewing: your source doesn't back up any of the claims you made, and it does nothing to scare away conservatives. They like a consistent libertarian voting record.
And all this garbage about Christianity vs. Atheism needs to stop. That gets threads closed fast. And ffs at least cite sources when you say that Richard Dawkins wants to put people in jail for teaching their children Christianity. Whichever way you lean, we need some intellectual integrity around here.
I'd think the first part of intellectual integrity is simply to keep your mouth shut when you dont know anything about a topic? Anyone whos read or heard Richard dawkins has heard his diatribes about how raising a child religious is child abuse:
The only difference is he then contradictory winks and nudges the audience as he said he doesnt support it being against the law. So its child abuse- to which he considers worse than pedophilia by the way http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118 but just randomly shouldnt have any kind of legal ramification. Thats clear bullshit, hes just skipping around directly saying it because its bad PR. That or the man is utterly insane and thinks abusing your child in a worse manner than raping him should be totally kewl legally.
Don't presume to know what I do or do not know. It is common knowledge that Richard Dawkins is openly contemptuous of religion, and he makes strong normative arguments against religion all the time, and he is kind of a dick about it, but you claimed that he advocates throwing in jail parents who teach their kids religion. You didn't provide a source for your apparently false claim, and I didn't even call it false, I just said you need to provide a source for a statement that specific and dramatic. Instead you insulted the person asking for a source and you provided a video and an article that proves nothing of the sort. In the video he is refuting the exact claim that you are making (did you even watch it?), and in the article he is laying out an argument for the mental damage of teaching children about the horrors of Hell without saying anything about sending parents to jail. Neither prove your point.
Looks like a lot of republicans are about ready to jump off a bridge last night after watching last night's debate, being particularly horrified by Perry's performance. Here's an excerpt from an article at the Politico containing some reactions:
The Spectator took another bite at the apple late Friday morning.
“People from Texas often say that, while they don’t dislike Perry, he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer,” wrote Ross Kaminsky. “With every debate, that criticism has been validated, with Thursday night the most egregious example of Perry’s intellect simply not being at the level of others on the stage.”
Michelle Malkin, on her blog, remarked that “any random high schooler at the CPAC conference in Washington could have done better than this.”
“If this is how Perry’s going to take Obama on in debates, we’re in trouble,” she noted. “Someone inject him with some Red Bull and a dash of Herman Cain’s personality.”
The night, taken as a whole, not only reinforced Mitt Romney’s message about his own steadiness and electability but raised enough red flags about Perry that it could take him several solid debates just to undo the damage. Few voices were willing to throw their lot with the former Massachusetts governor but many seemed to suddenly characterize Perry as equally tainted.
A scroll through the posts on the conservative blog RedState provided a good cross-section of the head-shaking.
Contributor Ben Howe, in a post called “I Need a Hero,” called the GOP field “a panel of damaged goods best relegated to sniping at each other or making statements that cause their staunchest allies to stare in bewilderment.”
Of Perry, Howe said: “I feel that I’ve seen what he’s made of, and it makes me sad.”
The site’s editor, Erick Erickson, also a CNN contributor, deemed Perry “a train wreck.”
An exasperated Steve Deace, a conservative Iowa radio talker, suggested that Perry might have handed Romney the nomination.
“Willard has never looked more presidential then when he’s standing next to Perry,” he wrote, derisively using Romney’s middle name.
Deace wasn’t more charitable to the rest of the GOP field, calling it “flaccid” and saying that grassroots voters don’t have a candidate currently in the race.
Still, most everyone on stage Thursday seemed to receive some modicum of praise for their performance—everyone except Perry, that is.
Romney was viewed by many as the winner by default; Red State’s Erickson pronounced Herman Cain the winner.
“Good Lord,” Erickson wrote, “this was the worst debate I think I’ve ever watched.”
If Christie gets into the race it will draw away support from Perry and Romney and the also-rans, with the top 3 probably in a dead heat. Which will solve Perry's sudden image problem, in a three-way race anything can happen.
On September 24 2011 07:01 xDaunt wrote: Sweet, looks like the fat man is reconsidering getting into the game. I think he'd poll very well right at the outset.
On September 24 2011 07:34 DeepElemBlues wrote: If Christie gets into the race it will draw away support from Perry and Romney and the also-rans, with the top 3 probably in a dead heat. Which will solve Perry's sudden image problem, in a three-way race anything can happen.
I dunno, I wouldn't be surprised if Christie emerged as the frontrunner. Let's be honest. Before Perry got in, the republican field was basically the leftovers from 2008 -- John McCain's sloppy seconds so to speak. Not a very inspirational bunch. Republicans were so desperate for someone new and exciting that they turned to Perry and got interested in him real fast (myself included). After most of two months of review, republicans aren't sure that they like what they're seeing. So now republicans are back to square one, looking for an alternative to the leftovers of 2008 + Perry.
Keep in mind that Chris Christie has a lot of the appeal that Perry has. He's brash and monsterously adheres to his convictions. He definitely doesn't suffer from Romney's comparatively limp approach. Christie is the type of inspirational leader that republicans want to see, which is why he has enjoyed a lot of popularity and attention nationally since becoming governor. Seriously, what kind of politician openly scolds the media or some uppity, self-entitled teacher who asks a stupid question? It's completely refreshing. I like Christie because he's the polar opposite of the type of candidate that our stupidly politically correct society expects.
Anyway, if Christie gets in, there'll be a very large magnifying glass put over him, so everyone will have a chance to see what warts, if any, are there.
His answer to fixing the economy would be to remove all money from education and public servants x.x
It's high time education and public servants stopped getting extravagant amounts of money that result in poor test scores and the stereotypical long lines at the DMV.
His answer to fixing the economy would be to remove all money from education and public servants x.x
It's high time education and public servants stopped getting extravagant amounts of money that result in poor test scores and the stereotypical long lines at the DMV.
1. While throwing money at a problem doesn't automatically fix it, removing money from education is not the answer to fixing education either. 2. Umm... public servants getting extravagant amounts of money? What planet are you from? The vaaaaast majority do not.
people should vote for individuals and not parties.
Look at candidates voting records and see if they are a flip flopper, patriot act supporter, CFR member, etc...
The problem with the US today is that its overrun with corruption from the top to the bottom and only a man with huge integrity that has turned down payoffs can turn it around and there are only 2 men right now in the political scene and those are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
His answer to fixing the economy would be to remove all money from education and public servants x.x
It's high time education and public servants stopped getting extravagant amounts of money that result in poor test scores and the stereotypical long lines at the DMV.
Lol since when did educators start making tons of money?
His answer to fixing the economy would be to remove all money from education and public servants x.x
It's high time education and public servants stopped getting extravagant amounts of money that result in poor test scores and the stereotypical long lines at the DMV.
Lol since when did educators start making tons of money?
Haven't you heard? Teachers are the billionaires that stole from the poor and destroyed our economy.
His answer to fixing the economy would be to remove all money from education and public servants x.x
It's high time education and public servants stopped getting extravagant amounts of money that result in poor test scores and the stereotypical long lines at the DMV.
I think the poor results are a result of the overall climat in the society and not the actuall school system.
His answer to fixing the economy would be to remove all money from education and public servants x.x
It's high time education and public servants stopped getting extravagant amounts of money that result in poor test scores and the stereotypical long lines at the DMV.
I think the poor results are a result of the overall climat in the society and not the actuall school system.
There are many issues that contribute to poor tests scores. Unfortunately, too many people try and play the blame game. Also, while there are no doubt many poor educators, the negative view many Americans have about teachers is very sad.
overtime anything that's social and guaranteed is gonna disintegrate into crap, because there's no incentive for genuine improvement or even maintenance. Government policies aren't really judged in a meritocratic system.
1. While throwing money at a problem doesn't automatically fix it, removing money from education is not the answer to fixing education either.
Governor Walker's horrendous education-destroying plan in Wisconsin has been an unexpected success in giving school districts first of all money saved that can be spent elsewhere and flexibility in hiring. Imagine that. The world did not end when the government gravy train had a few cars cut off the back.
2. Umm... public servants getting extravagant amounts of money? What planet are you from? The vaaaaast majority do not.
Public servants today generally get superior benefits and pension plans than do people in the private sector.
Sorry but it seems you don't know much about the subject.
Lol since when did educators start making tons of money?
There was a lot of news coverage about teacher salaries and benefits and those of other public workers last year, weren't you paying attention?
Haven't you heard? Teachers are the billionaires that stole from the poor and destroyed our economy.
1. While throwing money at a problem doesn't automatically fix it, removing money from education is not the answer to fixing education either.
Governor Walker's horrendous education-destroying plan in Wisconsin has been an unexpected success in giving school districts first of all money saved that can be spent elsewhere and flexibility in hiring. Imagine that. The world did not end when the government gravy train had a few cars cut off the back.
Haven't you heard? Teachers are the billionaires that stole from the poor and destroyed our economy.
I don't think you know what stealing means =/
Where? Lol. Many of them take less money for the perceived job security. ROFL @ you attacking teacher salaries. Public teachers generally do get paid more than ones who teach in private schools. Sure. But thats because private school teachers generally make pennies. Public school teachers start out at shockingly low wages as well considering what you pay for in education. We are talking like 25-30k a year starting out here in Michigan.
Its disgusting how people are attacking state workers for their "golden" insurance plans. Instead of fixing the fucking system we have and going after the health insurance industry and the ridiculous medical costs.......lets try to fuck more people so the insurance companies make more money. Good job.
1. While throwing money at a problem doesn't automatically fix it, removing money from education is not the answer to fixing education either.
Governor Walker's horrendous education-destroying plan in Wisconsin has been an unexpected success in giving school districts first of all money saved that can be spent elsewhere and flexibility in hiring. Imagine that. The world did not end when the government gravy train had a few cars cut off the back.
Haven't you heard? Teachers are the billionaires that stole from the poor and destroyed our economy.
I don't think you know what stealing means =/
Pensions to make up for lower salaries? Part of your salary going into your pension plan? ::shrugs:: Not the end of the world, in my opinion. Certainly not extravagant. New Jersey teachers get paid pretty well compared to teachers in other states... but then again, we're one of the best taught states in the country as well.
Seeing as how my mother's a teacher in New Jersey, I just got my master's degree in mathematics education at Rutgers (in New Jersey), am going for my PhD in education at Rutgers, and am pursuing a career in high school and college teaching, and that I live in New Jersey, I can safely say that I know plenty about the topic of education, including the politics and salaries in New Jersey.
EPT
