|
|
On October 10 2012 07:27 oneofthem wrote:
i can assure you your admiration is misplaced...
It might very well be. But I gotta have SOMEONE to admire.
Be interested to hear your thoughts, I know very little about it really
(I just like their philosophical tradition)
|
On October 10 2012 07:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 07:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:
But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis. People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies. As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure. Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive... I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be. The choice parents have NOW is: Deal with your school or pick up and move. Vouchers would actually allow parents to change schools without changing their address. The current system is the one that forces a greater economic burden on parents looking for a better school. On October 10 2012 06:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:
But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis. People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies. As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure. Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive... I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be. Who said anything about moving? And 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to a school? I've got probably 10 schools within 20 minutes driving distance. Forcing parents to go to a failing one because of their address is more immoral in my opinion than giving them the OPTION to drive somewhere else. So because of your subjective circumstances that would make the possible transition easier the rest of the people who live outside of that "10 schools within 20 minutes of driving" should move into larger cities? Or maybe there should be more schools built to fit that demand but then that's funding on education :O Also your position is rather ridiculous... "X school gets such good grades!" So 5000 people in that area apply the next year... The reason they're region based is because of the fact you can't just "go to the best school" if it's beside you along with another 5k kids. Over population is a big deal in schools, exaggerated population would be even worse. Nothing you've said makes any relevant sense on a realistic basis... Either you live in a county where there are 10 schoolls in a 20 minute distance such that you choose to go to the best school, but what if everyone chooses that? Doesn't work. Or you live far away and are forced to move because now your school isn't getting adequate funding. Your argument is that one that doesn't make sense. It boils down to "Not everyone has a perfect choice so we should eliminate choice altogether and enforce a monopoly." I get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy. Vouchers are not going to solve all our problems, the point is it will be an improvement over the existing system, in which we already have failing schools and corrupt administrations and wasted money. And in the meantime, we won't make the immoral decision of forcing kids into schools that people know are bad against the will of the parents. get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy. I decided to take this tid bit out. It's not about "increasing spending" in America, it's about equal spending. It's no coincidence that America has one of the absolute worst education system in any of the main countries around the world when it comes to public schooling while also using a system that gives cash on grades. You don't "throw more money at failing schools"... What you're arguing is that someone should pick up and find a better school, how do we do this? How does someone just pick up and find a better school when MILLIONS of people will follow that ideology if that's what the case is. Obviously you want your kid in the school getting more spending. Let's have a system that gives 10x the amount of money to one school and then question why the other one is doing so poorly. Also again you didn't answer the aspect of kids going to all the best schools, how would all the parents have a fair and equal ability to go to the schools in this hypothetical situation? First come first serve? Who has the biggest pay? Biggest dick? This is a ridiculous system. You either have people in moving distance being denied for x reasons and you're stuck in the same position or you're asking people to move closer to a better school that again will be over populated because the "worse schools" are worse. Again, the current system is the one that forces parents to move if they want to change schools, which places a greater economic burden than a voucher system would. Your claim that all the worst performing schools are the one's receiving the least funding is way off. In fact, often the opposite is true. Any idea which part of the country is highest in per pupil spending? Washington DC. New York and New Jersey are second and third. Hopefully I don't have to tell you how these areas score. Hint: They score terribly. This system is not about shifting people around to avoid bad schools, it's to enforce accountability on bad schools to turn them into better schools.
According to the US General Accounting Office, “…the average school in a
wealthy district receives 24% more [overall] funding than the average school in a poor
district.”
http://www.macalester.edu/educationreform/reformcomposition/JennieSR.pdf
Funding is not equal:D
|
On October 10 2012 07:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 07:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:
But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis. People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies. As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure. Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive... I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be. The choice parents have NOW is: Deal with your school or pick up and move. Vouchers would actually allow parents to change schools without changing their address. The current system is the one that forces a greater economic burden on parents looking for a better school. On October 10 2012 06:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:
But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis. People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies. As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure. Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive... I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be. Who said anything about moving? And 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to a school? I've got probably 10 schools within 20 minutes driving distance. Forcing parents to go to a failing one because of their address is more immoral in my opinion than giving them the OPTION to drive somewhere else. So because of your subjective circumstances that would make the possible transition easier the rest of the people who live outside of that "10 schools within 20 minutes of driving" should move into larger cities? Or maybe there should be more schools built to fit that demand but then that's funding on education :O Also your position is rather ridiculous... "X school gets such good grades!" So 5000 people in that area apply the next year... The reason they're region based is because of the fact you can't just "go to the best school" if it's beside you along with another 5k kids. Over population is a big deal in schools, exaggerated population would be even worse. Nothing you've said makes any relevant sense on a realistic basis... Either you live in a county where there are 10 schoolls in a 20 minute distance such that you choose to go to the best school, but what if everyone chooses that? Doesn't work. Or you live far away and are forced to move because now your school isn't getting adequate funding. Your argument is that one that doesn't make sense. It boils down to "Not everyone has a perfect choice so we should eliminate choice altogether and enforce a monopoly." I get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy. Vouchers are not going to solve all our problems, the point is it will be an improvement over the existing system, in which we already have failing schools and corrupt administrations and wasted money. And in the meantime, we won't make the immoral decision of forcing kids into schools that people know are bad against the will of the parents. get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy. I decided to take this tid bit out. It's not about "increasing spending" in America, it's about equal spending. It's no coincidence that America has one of the absolute worst education system in any of the main countries around the world when it comes to public schooling while also using a system that gives cash on grades. You don't "throw more money at failing schools"... What you're arguing is that someone should pick up and find a better school, how do we do this? How does someone just pick up and find a better school when MILLIONS of people will follow that ideology if that's what the case is. Obviously you want your kid in the school getting more spending. Let's have a system that gives 10x the amount of money to one school and then question why the other one is doing so poorly. Also again you didn't answer the aspect of kids going to all the best schools, how would all the parents have a fair and equal ability to go to the schools in this hypothetical situation? First come first serve? Who has the biggest pay? Biggest dick? This is a ridiculous system. You either have people in moving distance being denied for x reasons and you're stuck in the same position or you're asking people to move closer to a better school that again will be over populated because the "worse schools" are worse. Again, the current system is the one that forces parents to move if they want to change schools, which places a greater economic burden than a voucher system would. Your claim that all the worst performing schools are the one's receiving the least funding is way off. In fact, often the opposite is true. Any idea which part of the country is highest in per pupil spending? Washington DC. New York and New Jersey are second and third. Hopefully I don't have to tell you how these areas score. Hint: They score terribly. This system is not about shifting people around to avoid bad schools, it's to enforce accountability on bad schools to turn them into better schools.
Canada has roughly the same system, and it's not so much funding that affects the test scores. From Vancouver(very multicultural, with some areas of the city having high ethnic densities, including where I live), where I live back when I did the test was overwhelmingly southeast asian immigrants. This school consistently ranked bottom 10%, despite having multiple resource teachers to help students(year I did the test along with a couple other smart people we went up to bottom 20%). Extra funding goes the these schools largely because the demographic requires that they have extra resource teachers to help with the students who simply can't keep up because of language/culture differences. The top ranked schools were all consistently in the areas with the wealthier demographic(west side in this case).
|
On October 10 2012 07:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 07:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:
But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis. People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies. As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure. Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive... I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be. The choice parents have NOW is: Deal with your school or pick up and move. Vouchers would actually allow parents to change schools without changing their address. The current system is the one that forces a greater economic burden on parents looking for a better school. On October 10 2012 06:35 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:26 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 10 2012 06:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 10 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:
But what are "results"?
I don't think you can evaluate teachers on anything other than a qualitative basis. People need to keep in mind that it is not simply the teachers that need to be evaluated, it is the administrative system that surrounds them that has the problems and the inefficiencies. As far as how to measure performance, my solution is very simple. Leave it up to the parents. They know better than any bureaucrat what a good school or teacher looks like. Give them the money, don't send it to failing schools to reward their failure. Lol yes... The average person can simply pick up where they live and move, pay for the extra 20 dollars in gas per day to drive... I wish I lived in that world where moving came so easy and finances weren't an issue, what a magical world that would be. Who said anything about moving? And 20 dollars a day in gas to drive to a school? I've got probably 10 schools within 20 minutes driving distance. Forcing parents to go to a failing one because of their address is more immoral in my opinion than giving them the OPTION to drive somewhere else. So because of your subjective circumstances that would make the possible transition easier the rest of the people who live outside of that "10 schools within 20 minutes of driving" should move into larger cities? Or maybe there should be more schools built to fit that demand but then that's funding on education :O Also your position is rather ridiculous... "X school gets such good grades!" So 5000 people in that area apply the next year... The reason they're region based is because of the fact you can't just "go to the best school" if it's beside you along with another 5k kids. Over population is a big deal in schools, exaggerated population would be even worse. Nothing you've said makes any relevant sense on a realistic basis... Either you live in a county where there are 10 schoolls in a 20 minute distance such that you choose to go to the best school, but what if everyone chooses that? Doesn't work. Or you live far away and are forced to move because now your school isn't getting adequate funding. Your argument is that one that doesn't make sense. It boils down to "Not everyone has a perfect choice so we should eliminate choice altogether and enforce a monopoly." I get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy. Vouchers are not going to solve all our problems, the point is it will be an improvement over the existing system, in which we already have failing schools and corrupt administrations and wasted money. And in the meantime, we won't make the immoral decision of forcing kids into schools that people know are bad against the will of the parents. get the argument you are trying to squirm your way into. The argument is "either we all succeed together or we all fail together, because allowing separations would leave some worse off." Well, is that not exactly what we have now? We still have some good schools and some failing schools. The difference is that we force people into failing schools against their will. We just need more money right? We throw more money at the failing schools, and they are still failing schools. The problem is the system, the administration, the monopoly, the bureaucracy. I decided to take this tid bit out. It's not about "increasing spending" in America, it's about equal spending. It's no coincidence that America has one of the absolute worst education system in any of the main countries around the world when it comes to public schooling while also using a system that gives cash on grades. You don't "throw more money at failing schools"... What you're arguing is that someone should pick up and find a better school, how do we do this? How does someone just pick up and find a better school when MILLIONS of people will follow that ideology if that's what the case is. Obviously you want your kid in the school getting more spending. Let's have a system that gives 10x the amount of money to one school and then question why the other one is doing so poorly. Also again you didn't answer the aspect of kids going to all the best schools, how would all the parents have a fair and equal ability to go to the schools in this hypothetical situation? First come first serve? Who has the biggest pay? Biggest dick? This is a ridiculous system. You either have people in moving distance being denied for x reasons and you're stuck in the same position or you're asking people to move closer to a better school that again will be over populated because the "worse schools" are worse. Again, the current system is the one that forces parents to move if they want to change schools, which places a greater economic burden than a voucher system would. Your claim that all the worst performing schools are the one's receiving the least funding is way off. In fact, often the opposite is true. Any idea which part of the country is highest in per pupil spending? Washington DC. New York and New Jersey are second and third. Hopefully I don't have to tell you how these areas score. Hint: They score terribly. This system is not about shifting people around to avoid bad schools, it's to enforce accountability on bad schools to turn them into better schools.
In my view when I was a student and an educator is that the big problem with education is quantifying success. There is a lot of correlation study but practically no causation study. And even more stressful is that the strongest correlation studies show success tied to family involvement which is out of the hands of educators.
Basically, asking for evaluations of teachers is like asking for evaluations of parents. It can be done but there are a million ways to do it and student outcomes, while they trend in the big picture, show enough variance on the individual level that nobody feels safe from any result.
This leads to schools which have bad test scores spending huge sums of money on administrative costs trying to diagnose an undiagnosable problem instead of sending the money to students by hiring the additional help needed to reduce class sizes and provide supplemental programs.
Humans occupy a normal distribution of intelligence and aptitude. We need to spend money institutionalizing suitable accommodations for the back end of the curve rather than spending insane money trying to "fix" them.
|
On October 10 2012 07:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. Prove it, Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 02:09 farvacola wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. xDaunt is merely doing his part as he shamelessly imitates the Romney campaigning strategy; deny everything, say nothing of substance, and pile on the assertive fortune telling mixed with sophomoric pejoration. I mean, come on, we got his debate score; all of this hot air falls pretty neatly in line with the Republican platform this cycle. My debate score was pretty damned accurate. If anything, I was generous to Obama compared to what many liberals are saying about his performance. I have offered plenty of substantive commentary. Hell, I even talked about the tax thing. All these studies that democrats keep pushing on Romney's tax plan (like the TPC) are based upon flawed assumptions. This has been discussed ad nauseum already. Again, what all you liberals seem to have forgotten is that this election is referendum on Obama, not Romney. Unsurprisingly, you aren't even really bothering to defend him. What flawed assumptions? There are more studies than the TPC too. Here's one from Brookings which finds the same thing despite accounting for unrealistically large economic growth from Greg Mankiw's model: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looneyAll of these are nonpartisan organizations. The only "studies" that dispute these results are partisan and have been debunked. No, this is not just a referendum on Obama, no matter how much you say it is. For that to be true, we would need to assume that Romney doesn't exist.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html?page=1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-math-behind-romneys-tax-plan-adds_653618.html
these are good places to start. and btw, isn't Brookings the same place that does the TPC reports?
|
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_budget_2010_2.html
Just to keep things in perspective. Education makes up 4% of the budget. Defense is 22%.
I don't advocate throwing money mindlessly at the problem of bad schools, but think of the proportions. A tiny fraction of the defense budget moved to education would be 100000x better spent IMO.
|
On October 10 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote:http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_budget_2010_2.htmlJust to keep things in perspective. Education makes up 4% of the budget. Defense is 22%. I don't advocate throwing money mindlessly at the problem of bad schools, but think of the proportions. A tiny fraction of the defense budget moved to education would be 100000x better spent IMO.
lol, exactly. Well said. I think this can be summed up with the statement penny wise, pound foolish.
|
On October 10 2012 07:43 sevencck wrote:lol, exactly. Well said. I think this can be summed up with the statement penny wise, pound foolish.
Reminds me of Neil Degrasse Tyson talk about NASA spending being about 1/6th of a penny (it's went up a bit since but not much). Imagine if they just slipped 5% of the defense budget and spread it around. :D Less time blowing up villages and more time fixing your own crumbling homes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 10 2012 07:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 07:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. Prove it, On October 10 2012 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 02:09 farvacola wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. xDaunt is merely doing his part as he shamelessly imitates the Romney campaigning strategy; deny everything, say nothing of substance, and pile on the assertive fortune telling mixed with sophomoric pejoration. I mean, come on, we got his debate score; all of this hot air falls pretty neatly in line with the Republican platform this cycle. My debate score was pretty damned accurate. If anything, I was generous to Obama compared to what many liberals are saying about his performance. I have offered plenty of substantive commentary. Hell, I even talked about the tax thing. All these studies that democrats keep pushing on Romney's tax plan (like the TPC) are based upon flawed assumptions. This has been discussed ad nauseum already. Again, what all you liberals seem to have forgotten is that this election is referendum on Obama, not Romney. Unsurprisingly, you aren't even really bothering to defend him. What flawed assumptions? There are more studies than the TPC too. Here's one from Brookings which finds the same thing despite accounting for unrealistically large economic growth from Greg Mankiw's model: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looneyAll of these are nonpartisan organizations. The only "studies" that dispute these results are partisan and have been debunked. No, this is not just a referendum on Obama, no matter how much you say it is. For that to be true, we would need to assume that Romney doesn't exist. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html?page=1http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-math-behind-romneys-tax-plan-adds_653618.htmlthese are good places to start. and btw, isn't Brookings the same place that does the TPC reports?
1. it's the weekly standard.
2. assuming growth is in very sketchy territory. rosen basically reverse engineered the question to find the right growth rate so you can see what his goal is. seriously.
edit: in the rosen piece he says all deductions for those making 100k+ are eliminated. this is pretty huge and largely accounts for the gap.
|
On October 10 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote:http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_budget_2010_2.htmlJust to keep things in perspective. Education makes up 4% of the budget. Defense is 22%. I don't advocate throwing money mindlessly at the problem of bad schools, but think of the proportions. A tiny fraction of the defense budget moved to education would be 100000x better spent IMO.
I agree completely with this. I'll be the first one to call for massive defense spending cuts. But to suggest the entire problem with education is funding is to ignore the horrible inefficiencies and inevitable stagnation in a monopolistic environment.
My wife is a teacher, I know about the schools she works in, I know about the education I had growing up. I had a teacher that literally did not teach a single thing. We sat in class and watched movies, or talked. Personally, I read tons of books and played with origami. Everyone in the school knew this guy was a terrible teacher. The administrators, the other teachers, the students, the parents. But they could not get rid of him because he had tenure and was protected by the unions no matter how poorly he behaved or taught. This is a problem that all the funding in the world will never be able to solve.
|
On October 10 2012 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: what is "rule number 1" and what do you know about Marxism in the West? Have you read Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Eagleton, Jameson, Harvey or anybody even remotely like that? What do you think "Marxism" is? Attribute to me a belief as a "Marxist" and we'll see if you know what you're talking about. (If you say something from the Manifesto I'm gonna do something rash and ill-considered - nobody cares about that pamphlet)
edit: Marxism can't "fail" because Marxism isn't a political programme, it's a theory (of capitalism). What failed are political programmes based on a very bad version of Marxism which has as little to do with Marx as American "christians" have to do with Jesus. (also, to the extent we are talking about this, China can hardly be considered a "failure")
edit: I don't believe for a minute you know the first thing about what Marx thought. Try me. You do realize that Marx was appalled at the sort of thing that "Marxists" were doing in his name and famously declared that he was not one?
edit: I don't care to be in good standing with liberals because I don't believe in the free market and civil liberties above all other concerns (you do know what a "liberal" is, right, and that you are one?) I also don't care about being in good standing with "progressives" because I am not a Keynesian and I loathe identity politics. Speaking of which, what exactly are you politically? So far, you have defied every box into which I would put you. "Marxism" in the context in which you're using it is more of a philosophy than a political doctrine. That's because I'm a philosopher, not a politician. There's no spot for me in the American political spectrum. My only political platform at this time is that our old ideas are not working and we need to think "outside the box," so to speak. I just want to open up the discourse. Do I have some ideas? Sure. But I hardly know anything, it will take lots of people working together to invent a new system. (edit: I should say, it's also because Marxism is not and has never been a political doctrine. Marxism-Leninism is a political doctrine. Maoism is a political doctrine. Marxism is not. It is a philosophy/theory, however you want to think of the difference. One becomes a Marxist, and then attempts to formulate a political theory from it to suit one's political moment. Marxism emphasizes above all the dynamics of history, so Marxism as a static political doctrine would be self-refuting)
Yeah, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't have a label for it. I'm going to have to come up with a new box to put you in.
|
On October 10 2012 08:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 05:12 sam!zdat wrote:On October 10 2012 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 04:18 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: what is "rule number 1" and what do you know about Marxism in the West? Have you read Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, Eagleton, Jameson, Harvey or anybody even remotely like that? What do you think "Marxism" is? Attribute to me a belief as a "Marxist" and we'll see if you know what you're talking about. (If you say something from the Manifesto I'm gonna do something rash and ill-considered - nobody cares about that pamphlet)
edit: Marxism can't "fail" because Marxism isn't a political programme, it's a theory (of capitalism). What failed are political programmes based on a very bad version of Marxism which has as little to do with Marx as American "christians" have to do with Jesus. (also, to the extent we are talking about this, China can hardly be considered a "failure")
edit: I don't believe for a minute you know the first thing about what Marx thought. Try me. You do realize that Marx was appalled at the sort of thing that "Marxists" were doing in his name and famously declared that he was not one?
edit: I don't care to be in good standing with liberals because I don't believe in the free market and civil liberties above all other concerns (you do know what a "liberal" is, right, and that you are one?) I also don't care about being in good standing with "progressives" because I am not a Keynesian and I loathe identity politics. Speaking of which, what exactly are you politically? So far, you have defied every box into which I would put you. "Marxism" in the context in which you're using it is more of a philosophy than a political doctrine. That's because I'm a philosopher, not a politician. There's no spot for me in the American political spectrum. My only political platform at this time is that our old ideas are not working and we need to think "outside the box," so to speak. I just want to open up the discourse. Do I have some ideas? Sure. But I hardly know anything, it will take lots of people working together to invent a new system. (edit: I should say, it's also because Marxism is not and has never been a political doctrine. Marxism-Leninism is a political doctrine. Maoism is a political doctrine. Marxism is not. It is a philosophy/theory, however you want to think of the difference. One becomes a Marxist, and then attempts to formulate a political theory from it to suit one's political moment. Marxism emphasizes above all the dynamics of history, so Marxism as a static political doctrine would be self-refuting) Yeah, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't have a label for it. I'm going to have to come up with a new box to put you in.
bwahahaha my evil plan bears fruit :D I am all about the new boxes (edit: even though I know it will probably be labeled "that one crazy dude from TL")
|
On October 10 2012 08:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:I agree completely with this. I'll be the first one to call for massive defense spending cuts. But to suggest the entire problem with education is funding is to ignore the horrible inefficiencies and inevitable stagnation in a monopolistic environment. My wife is a teacher, I know about the schools she works in, I know about the education I had growing up. I had a teacher that literally did not teach a single thing. We sat in class and watched movies, or talked. Personally, I read tons of books and played with origami. Everyone in the school knew this guy was a terrible teacher. The administrators, the other teachers, the students, the parents. But they could not get rid of him because he had tenure and was protected by the unions no matter how poorly he behaved or taught. This is a problem that all the funding in the world will never be able to solve.
Yeah, this is I guess what that other guy was getting at when he said everything was "money up" or "money down." Politicians don't talk about qualitative solutions, just dollar amounts.
@That guy from early, whatever your name was. I'm sorry I called you facile. You're a genius. I abase myself before you
|
On October 10 2012 07:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 07:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. That's not correct. There are, in fact, enough tax expenditures available to make the 20% cut revenue neutral. Prove it, On October 10 2012 02:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 02:09 farvacola wrote:On October 10 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 01:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 10 2012 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2012 00:57 oneofthem wrote:
it doesn't matter if biden is dumb as a rock, what matters is that ryan's actual policy proposals are DEADLY to romney's chances if biden could manage to get him to repeat them. particularly ryans' stance on the medical programs. get him to go into actual policy and stay far away from tea party puff clouds and biden can do just fine.
and of course ryan's policies are actually hilariously bad and i guess that's what "intellectual horses" gets you nowadays. You do realize that Ryan's policies don't matter anymore, right? Ryan has to push Romney's policies, which he is doing and has been doing since he was selected as VP. As for Ryan's policies, I'm always amused by how liberals view conservative policies with such unwarranted and uninformed condescension. It's no more effective than repeatedly bellowing that Romney lied his ass off throughout the entire debate with Obama. That's okay, though. I like it when the other party is running thoroughly off the rails. Clearly, the truth doesn't matter to you. Only the performance, optics, and spin do. Depends upon what "truth" you are talking about: the cartoonish caricature of Romney that the left has been crafting over the past six months or the nearly indefensible record of a four-year, failed presidency? I think it's pretty clear which "truth" matters more to the electorate. Caricature? We've debunked this many times. And we (not you) have discussed this to death on this thread already. Yes, Romney has a plan to cut taxes by 20%, it's on his own website so how is that a caricature? No, it's not possible to make up $5T in loss revenue by closing loopholes. No, Romney's plan does not cover preexisting conditions, it's the same as the current law, he's own aide even said so after the debate. It's hard to pin down Romney's policies, because he keeps flip-flopping. But, again, we (not you) have already gone over this to death. If you had a problem with our characterization of Romney's plan why didn't you say something when we were discussing this? Oh, because you never talk about substance and policy, you just talk about optics and make cocky remarks about Obama being fucked. xDaunt is merely doing his part as he shamelessly imitates the Romney campaigning strategy; deny everything, say nothing of substance, and pile on the assertive fortune telling mixed with sophomoric pejoration. I mean, come on, we got his debate score; all of this hot air falls pretty neatly in line with the Republican platform this cycle. My debate score was pretty damned accurate. If anything, I was generous to Obama compared to what many liberals are saying about his performance. I have offered plenty of substantive commentary. Hell, I even talked about the tax thing. All these studies that democrats keep pushing on Romney's tax plan (like the TPC) are based upon flawed assumptions. This has been discussed ad nauseum already. Again, what all you liberals seem to have forgotten is that this election is referendum on Obama, not Romney. Unsurprisingly, you aren't even really bothering to defend him. What flawed assumptions? There are more studies than the TPC too. Here's one from Brookings which finds the same thing despite accounting for unrealistically large economic growth from Greg Mankiw's model: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looneyAll of these are nonpartisan organizations. The only "studies" that dispute these results are partisan and have been debunked. No, this is not just a referendum on Obama, no matter how much you say it is. For that to be true, we would need to assume that Romney doesn't exist. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/check-math-romneys-tax-plan-doesnt-raise-middle-class-taxes_653485.html?page=1http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-math-behind-romneys-tax-plan-adds_653618.htmlthese are good places to start. and btw, isn't Brookings the same place that does the TPC reports?
We've been over this. Every study in support of Romney is by Republican economists, which Rosen is. That study basically defines above $100,000 as above the middle class.
This study has been debunked here:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/09/department-of-huh-harvey-rosen-says-that-the-romney-tax-cuts-will-raise-national-incomes-by-3-5-or-7-percent.html
Here:
Harvey Rosen also says that Romney could pay for it if he retains the Estate Tax--which Romney has promised to eliminate--and massively raises taxes on all households making between $100,000/year and $200,000/year by eliminating all of their deductions as well.
And here:
Princeton professor Harvey Rosen simply ignores the fact that Romney would repeal the estate tax (which affects only the top 0.3% wealthiest estates) and roll back Medicare taxes for the 2% of families with the highest incomes. In other words, Rosen wishes away roughly one fifth of the tax cuts for the wealthy that are included in Romney’s plan. Rosen also argues that optimistic economic growth assumptions could pay for Romney’s tax plan, but he ignores the fact that the Tax Policy Center study showed that even using research by Romney advisor Greg Mankiw on the impact of tax rates on growth—an approach that wouldn’t be accepted by Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, or most budget analysts—you can’t make Romney’s plan add up.
|
681 Posts
Before I get into this I'd like it noted this isn't even a proper use of the term. Your starting position is not a "flip".
Flip
"I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing [Romneycare], then that will be a model for the nation." –Mitt Romney, while campaigning for president in Baltimore in 2007
Flop
"At the time I crafted the plan in the last campaign I was asked is [Romneycare] something that you would have the whole nation do, and I said no. This is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation." – Mitt Romney in a 2011 Republican presidential primary debate
The term "model" in the Flip is the equivalent of "example". The plan was for his state and he recognizes different states would need changes due to differences in population, wealth, demographics, etc. Fifty states running versions of RomneyCare is different from the DC-centric ObamaCare.
Flip
"Well, I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform." – Mitt Romney, Meet the Press interview (Sept. 9, 2012)
Flop
"Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety." – Mitt Romney, Hugh Hewitt Show interview (Sept. 10, 2012)
Such weak sauce.
Let's try an analogy here. If a sports team has a terrible season and the coach says "We are going to completely rebuild the team for next season" they don't mean that every single person is fired and every single diagrammed play is shredded.
If your understanding of legislation is even a fraction beyond the "I'm Just a Bill" Schoolhouse Rock song, you understand that the proper procedure of health care reform going forward is to completely repeal PPACA first and implement the few good/politically popular ideas that were included in it after.
Flip
Romney, speaking in 2012 about the U.S. auto industry's comeback: "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."
Flop
Romney, writing in a 2008 New York Times op-ed titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt": "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."
Same deal here. If for example, the Chicago teachers union demands a 30% pay raise and less work and a politician says "If the teachers union gets their way it is bad for parents and students" and then a deal is reached where the teachers get a 5% raise and more work (note-I'm not looking up what the Chicago teachers actually got I just know it was waaaay less than what they demanded) you score zero points against the politician if he then says the deal was okay.
btw the auto bailout was a travesty; screwing over investors, non-union auto workers, and the taxpayers in favor of a giant payoff to auto worker unions.
Flip
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." – Mitt Romney, in a 1994 debate with Sen. Edward Kennedy. In 2002, Romney also said, "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose."
Flop
"Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I changed my position." – Mitt Romney, in a 2007 Iowa Straw poll debate
I don't know what Romney plans to do different as a pro-lifer than a pro-choicer so you can have this one as a flip-flop if you like. I'd just note that China is just about the only country in the world more pro-abortion than the US and many Americans think our current abortion laws are stricter than they actually are (First Google link that looked decent - http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/03/npr-poll-59-of-americans-say-having-an-abortion-is-wrong/).
Flip
Romney in 2012: "I don't manage the money that I have. In order to make sure that I didn't have a conflict of interest while I was governor or while I was considering a run for national office, I had a blind trust established."
Flop
Romney in 1994: "The blind trust is an age-old ruse, if you will, which is to say, you can always tell the blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules."
I made a self-imposed rule that I wouldn't look up anything for my response (not counting the link given above) but this sounds like quite a bit of context is missing. It sounds like an attempted syllogism. All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats. Some blind trusts are ruses but not all are. Since "ruse" is from 94 I'm guessing there was something specific about the Kennedy fortune involved in his comment.
Flip
Romney in June 2011: "I believe the world is getting warmer … I believe that humans contribute to that."
Flop
Romney in October 2011: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet."
zzzzzzz. "Contribute" is far from "cause" or even "significantly contribute". I'll bypass further comment on the great global climate change swindle.
Flip
"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." –Mitt Romney in a 1994 debate with Sen. Edward Kennedy
Flop
"When I was running for office for the first time in 1994, I was trying to define who I was…. I've said since, and continue to reiterate, that one of my heroes is Ronald Reagan." ––Mitt Romney in a 2006 Q&A with Human Events
FDR was one of Reagan's heroes. Reagan did not try to return America to the policies of the New Deal.
Honestly this whole list is merely a giant argument for the failure of American public education. A sixth grader with a few weeks of rhetoric and debate should see through this.
Flip
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them." –Mitt Romney in a 2002 gubernatorial debate
Flop
"I don't support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose." –Mitt Romney, in a 2008 interview with conservative bloggers
Obviously Romney does not mean he is against ANY and EVERY gun control law ANYWHERE EVER. Clinton's assault weapon ban had a sunset provision so it would expire without needing to do anything and everyone knew it would expire and not be renewed because it was cheap political theater that had done nothing worthwhile. If you are absolutely desperate to push up the Flip count you could include this but it'd be like arguing Obama is flip-flopping on tax rates for millionaires now because he didn't force a change immediately when he became President instead.
Flip
"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and representing our country there." –Mitt Romney, reflecting in a 2007 Boston Globe interview on the Vietnam War period, when he received a deferment to work as a Mormon missionary in France
Flop
"It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam." –Mitt Romney, as quoted in the Boston Herald in 1994
I long in many respects to actually be in Code S GSL representing my country there. It is not my desire to quit my job and move to Seoul and play StarCraft 2 for hours every day for years.
That the best you got?
|
|
|
Am I the only one who has thought that the reason that the USA spends so much on "defense" is because... we actually need it?
Like, the USA really is under constant threat of attack and this is how much money is needed to deter attack?
It's a pretty scary idea, but maybe there really are that many people out there that are eager to jump at any sign of weakness.
I just wonder if the USA has established itself as that much of a global bully and this is now what's necessary to maintain military dominance.
|
On October 10 2012 08:27 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
I just wonder if the USA has established itself as that much of a global bully and this is now what's necessary to maintain military dominance.
Yes
|
On October 10 2012 08:27 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
Am I the only one who has thought that the reason that the USA spends so much on "defense" is because... we actually need it?
Like, the USA really is under constant threat of attack and this is how much money is needed to deter attack?
It's a pretty scary idea, but maybe there really are that many people out there that are eager to jump at any sign of weakness.
I just wonder if the USA has established itself as that much of a global bully and this is now what's necessary to maintain military dominance.
lol
You're delusional if you think any country would ever attack the US.
|
On October 10 2012 08:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 08:27 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
Am I the only one who has thought that the reason that the USA spends so much on "defense" is because... we actually need it?
Like, the USA really is under constant threat of attack and this is how much money is needed to deter attack?
It's a pretty scary idea, but maybe there really are that many people out there that are eager to jump at any sign of weakness.
I just wonder if the USA has established itself as that much of a global bully and this is now what's necessary to maintain military dominance. lol You're delusional if you think any country would ever attack the US.
But that's cause we spend so much on the military of course. Any sign of weaknes.. and then THEY STRIKE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
