|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"Why the GOP will lose in the fall"
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 12:00 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
I just got a call from the RCC (Repub Congressional Committee) looking for cash for the upcoming election. And the big 'tactic' is to scare me with talk of Speaker Pelosi. Granted that is a scenario second in nightmarishness to President Hillary, but it just wasn't enough for me.I don't think there is a person on these boards who doesn't know about my commitment to the GOP. I'm about as Republican as they come. And yet I feel no motivation to financially suport the party. I don't want to work phone banks. I may not even vote Republican this year. And the reason is very simple: Republicans have stopped ACTING like Republicans. Spending is through the roof, government is growing at an inordinate speed, government intruision is becoming easier and more prevalent. And they want MY money? I already give them lots of money in taxes and they can't take care of THAT! Now don't get me wrong at all. I trust the Dems even less than the Republicans on the issues that matter to me. I know that there are lots of people in the party and in elected office who share my desire for lower taxes, less government and less spending - and there are virtually none on the Left who share my values. BUT it is the voters like me, and the much less rabid voters who lean Republican, who are going to cost them the election.
Not the Left and probably not even the middle. But the people who have supported them with votes and money in the past are just not going to be there. And it is probably too late to change that. Symbollic votes on gay marriage and flag burning are empty gestures when what they SHOULD be doing is cutting spending, extending the tax cuts, killing the death tax, limiting government and slowly but surely getting out of Iraq. They have done nothing on these fronts and it is really too late to make any serious change. On a positive note (for the GOP), I don't think that they will lose both houses - probably just one - but I think that it will be a wake up call for the party and maybe help bring the contrast (if there even is one anymore) between the GOP and the Left into sharper focus for 2008. So long Republicans. When you lose me, I can't help but think there are a lot more voters in the exact same boat. Sorry to rant, but the call this morning set me off. And to come full circle, I told the poor gal on the phone that until the GOP can start cutting spending, I will be cutting mine - and very politely hung up. 
But, the four of us had a great time.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-17-06, 12:41 PM (EST)
|
|
50. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
my state has some of the most restrictive laws to keep independant and third party candidates off the ballot. We have GOT to get that law changed. I think voter turnout is going to keep nosediving (unless there's a school bonds referendum on the ballot), and I'm wondering how long it's going to take the Board of Elections to realize it's because too many people want to pick "Other". That's the biggest reason why I never say never when we have the "would you vote for... in 2008" thresds here. Us folks in the backwoods might only have two choices, so I'm hesitant to paint myself in even a bigger corner than I already am. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snidget 44369 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 01:27 PM (EST)
|
|
11. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
I've gotten a few scare calls about my current representative (D). I got switched recently to a new district that will probably go Democratic a fair amount of the time, but they seem to be trying to rally all the peeps in the area that vote religiously for whichever RNC mouthpiece the RNC can control the bestest. (one of the heavily Republican areas they added to the "minority" district for "balance") Now, now, I understand party loyalty and all, but dayum when there is one little thing that really screws your constituants over you are suppose to at least pretend to care. I've lived in places where the candidates actually seemed to be working to get the people's votes, the old district they seemed to be trying to get the RNC to back them the mostest. That just turns me off. I will never vote for you so one party or the other can keep control of congress so please stop using that as a your reason for being. I want to know you give a carp about the voters, not that many of them really do. *sigh* Just I'm used to them pretending they care more convincingly and being able to say something that isn't a talking point. Is it gettig that bad all over? Maybe it's just the transition from to the new improved totally partisan version of American politics and not the change in scenery.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
batts 1731 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Peanut Festival Grand Marshall"
|
08-16-06, 04:15 PM (EST)
|
|
19. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
PRE ...... I have always been republican, however, the last 6 years of this dictatorship have really made me wonder why the government of this country is actively trying to tear this nation to shreds. I didn't really care for the government listening to my phone calls, or reading my emails. Don't like the presidents stand on amnesty for illegals. Don't like the tax cuts for the middle class. (oops wait... there are no tax cuts for the middle class) Didn't think we should have invaded Iraq... Now look at that mess.... Almost every decision the president has made.... It looks like to me he's made decisions in his own personal favor. Look at Health Care costs.....
Look at the price of gasoline today!
The exporting of American Jobs! But MOST OF ALL ... the worst thing that this president DID
was try to PROMOTE
Arab Countries in charge of U.S. Port Security! WHAT THE.... !
That ...... in itself makes me wonder why this government is trying to tear this country to shreds. Sometimes I wonder...
"oh, my gosh...... what are they thinking?" So... what are the alternatives in voting? I HATE Hillary! Who can we trust anymore? Or was there ever anyone we could trust? 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 04:28 PM (EST)
|
|
20. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
It's a great question. I REALLY can't trust the Democrats to protect me or stand for what I believe in, but the Repubs record on that has been pretty woeful over the course of this current administration. It's almost like I have to hope that they lose so that they come back to the Ronald Reagan conservativism that put them in the majority in the first place.Unfortunately the down side there is, who in 2008, can actually do that and has the credentials to win. McCain is near the top of my list, but there are lots of holes in his resume as far as his conservative credentials; however I don't think that movement types like myself are stupid enough to pick an obscure but ideologically pure nominee who'll get waxed in November. If the GOP has learned one lesson from the Goldwater years, its that pragmatism is more important than ideology. Allen still has a shot regardless of the silly macaca statement. Romney won't fly with any of the religious right and probably would have a snowballs chance. Jeb would have been much better than his bro in the first place,but I think that ship has sailed. Guiliani has no support on the right and even pragmatism won't allow must of the Right to totally abandon their principles. Perhaps a popular governor? I dunno. SOMEone has to lead this party back to its principles, and right now it is definitely not obvious who that someone might be.
Have to disagree on the tax cuts and Iraq, though. At the time, it looked like we had no choice but to hold Saddam accountable for the weapons the entire world believed he had. Execution has left more than a little to be desired. And the tax cuts were HUGE - not just for the middle class, but in the effect that they have had on the economy as a whole, especially after 9/11 when the US economy should have imploded.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
cahaya 19891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-19-06, 11:48 AM (EST)
 |
|
59. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
But MOST OF ALL ... the worst thing that this president DID
was try to PROMOTE Arab Countries in charge of U.S. Port Security!Unfortunately, a popular misconception. Zipperhead began a thread back when it was an issue, and after some careful analysis, it was determined that UAE Ports World would become in charge of port management as part of the P&O buyout. The only real change was where the revenues and profits would go, not so much in personnel or operations. Ports security has been and always will be under the purview of the U.S. government and its agencies, not a private-sector port operator. 
Foo dogs by Tribe
|
|
|
Top |
| |
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 05:04 PM (EST)
|
|
21. "Evaluation" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-16-06 AT 05:04 PM (EST)cutting spending, extending the tax cuts, killing the death tax, limiting government and slowly but surely getting out of Iraq Let's look at Republican progress: 1. cutting spending: Spending has exploded under Bush. A big negative. 2. extending the tax cuts: A two-year extension was passed this year. A positive. 3. killing the death tax: Why? Why isn't it enough to raise the limits so that the tax falls only on the super-richest of the super-rich? The Republicans have tried to do that repeatedly, but the proposals have been filibustered in the Senate by the Democrats. On the last one, 41 of the 42 "no" votes were Democrats (the other was Lincoln Chaffee, R-RI). If two senators had switched, it would have passed. The blame (or credit, if you like soaking the not-so-rich and creating tax uncertainty) for this filibuster has to fall on the Democrats. 4. limiting government: A disaster. Government has grown like Topsy under Bush, with all kinds of new operations like Homeland Security bloating the payroll. Plus Congress has tried to federalize state issues, from Terri Schiavo to marriage. A big negative. 5. slowly but surely getting out of Iraq: After all the blunders made by the administration in the early days, such as eliminating the Iraqi police and army after winning (yes, putting lots of Sunnis with experience carrying arms out of work makes more sense than co-opting them into the new regime), there has definitely been progress made. Under this definition of the issue, I'd call this a positive for the Republicans. (Murtha and Lamont supporters have a different goal, so I'll ignore them.) So, overall, three Republican positives (though the Republicans haven't been able to get a death tax reduction passed, it hasn't been for lack of trying), two big negatives among your five points.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 05:20 PM (EST)
|
|
22. "RE: Evaluation" |
I'll have to disagree slightly on your scorecard, although only to a degree. For me, eliminating the death tax is an issue of fairness but only a minor factor in the ongoing battle to lower taxes. There HAS been progress there for sure, but I would probably give the Congress a B- for their efforts there. They get a big F on spending and an F- on limiting government.There has been progress on Iraq as well and I have always supported our actions there. However, I don't see any real movement toward getting our troops home and that is a disaster politically and not good policy for helping Iraq become independent. I think that a significant and ongoing reduction in force would take a lot of wind out of the sails of the insurgency that talks about being occupied. Put 200,000 troops in there - sweep the insurgency out of the country and immediately begin a withdrawal to below 100,000 troops. This should happen in the course of 3-6 months. Overall, I would give a C- on Iraq but there is definitely some extra work that can be taken on to raise that grade. So in my book the current grade is two F's, a B- and a C-. You make some valid points that on taxes and Iraq there aren't total failures, but the mediocre performance on those fronts is outweighed by the horrific failure on the others.
AND it is inexcuseable that the Senate has had to BEG Bush to send judicial nominees that so that they can be appointed prior to the next Congress. Good job on Alito and Roberts, but there was a chance to do much more.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
Rhyn 524 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
08-16-06, 06:21 PM (EST)
|
|
24. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
I have never identified with one party or the other, and I would never spend a vote just to throw one team or another a bone. I'd like to align myself somehow, if only to have a say during the primaries, but none of them are really a good fit for me personally.That said, before this administration, I was probably more likely to swing Republican -- that is, if someone had said, "pick a party or I'll shoot you" -- but I've been scared away. I don't identify with Democrats any more than I do Republicans, but I know for certain that the "religious right" and the cowboy-ishness is entirely in opposition to what I want. I've only been old enough to vote for the president three times, and I'm probably far more ignorant of politics than most others on this board (at least, those who bother to debate and vote). I don't know what is coming down the chute then, while some of the others here might feel more comfortable guessing where party politics will head next. In my experience, though, the Republican party has alienated me. They have wholesale rejected and dismissed the things I value, be they of domestic or foreign, economic or social substance. Their attack on the civil rights of some is also appalling, and I'll go farther than you did. Not only should they have better spent their time, they shouldn't have done it at all. They polarized people, made them declare, and got their way. They preyed on the fears of Susie Midwest and Joe Southern, turned something that should be a non-issue into the centerpiece of their hate campaign, and illuminated their ridiculous priorities all at one fell swoop. There are so many things about this administration that are embarrassing, it's hard to know where to start and where (if it's even possible) to end. The Republican party could care less if I became a supporter. They don't give a crap if I take my vote and go home... I'm just one person, and they've already won Texas, but I think it's going to take a whole lot of display and demonstration from the Republicans before I feel confident about sending my insignificant little checkmark to the right.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Rhyn 524 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
08-16-06, 09:31 PM (EST)
|
|
32. "Below the belt!" |
You know I cannot resist the Kinky, and here I am trying to be all serious. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
KeithFan 7422 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 07:52 PM (EST)
|
|
28. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
I've come to a lot of the same conclusions; I'm not sure where my vote will go this fall. My rep is a pretty secure blue dog Dem, she's done a pretty decent job except for the abortion issue. My Republican governor is pretty secure, despite what the extreme left would like to think even with a strong Dem contender- it'll probably go 58-42. This cycle is going to be more of an issue election for me. The big one is the abortion ban- except in the case where a mothers life is in danger. I get the feeling that it's going to fail, because it doesn't have an exclusion for rape and incest, but it will be close. And of course, we have to have a gay marriage vote, like everyone else, but I'm going to throw off all the pollsters and vote for one and against the other. 
Where have you gone, Ronald Reagan, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you...woo hoo hoo.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 08:21 PM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
Where have you gone, Ronald Reagan, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you...woo hoo hoo.True enough. But we really can't argue that we didn't know what we were getting with Bush, because he wasn't any more impressive as a candidate than he's been as a President. (I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries, myself.) The only thing that can be said in Bush's favor is that his opponents (Gore and Kerry) would probably have done far worse. But there are lots of politicos who would have done a much better job than Bush has done. Joe Lieberman, for one, which is partially why I started the "Countdown in Connecticut" thread. McCain, for another. But they never got out of the primaries. And the others never even ran. (Right now, presuming that McCain and Condi Rice won't run, I've been leaning toward Evan Bayh in '08, although he's a Democrat -- but I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of being nominated by the party of Ned Lamont.) Reagan's greatest attribute was that he really believed in the "big tent" idea. It's hard to find anyone in the leadership of either party (with the exception of Karl Rove, even though Democrats view him as Satan incarnate!) who shares that vision today.  Soylent Green: recycling America, one person at a time.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-17-06, 08:46 AM (EST)
|
|
37. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
Joe Lieberman, for
>one, which is partially why
>I started the "Countdown in
>Connecticut" thread. Hey, you guys are completely welcome to him. We sure don't want him. Anyone with his nose that far up W's butt should just be honest and switch parties. Didn't like him much in 2000 and I completely destest him now. Take him, please! the party of Ned
>Lamont.) Much as you'd like to make some sort of demon out of him, he is not the standard bearer for the party. In no way, shape, or form. That said? Better him than Lieberman. >Reagan's greatest attribute was that he
>really believed in the "big
>tent" idea. Big tent??????? *boggle* For whom? Not anyone I know. Of course, I'm not actually running in the millionaire crowd, so I was never invited into the tent. This myth just makes me hysterical. It's hard
>to find anyone in the
>leadership of either party (with
>the exception of Karl Rove,
>even though Democrats view him
>as Satan incarnate!) who shares
>that vision today. Karl Rove is certainly not the devil incarnate to me. Mean, lying, vindictive hack, yes. But devil? Nah. Sorta like you feel about James Carville, I suppose. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
KeithFan 7422 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-17-06, 09:15 AM (EST)
|
|
39. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
Big tent??????? *boggle* For whom? Not anyone I know. Of course, I'm not actually running in the millionaire crowd, so I was never invited into the tent.I'm sorry geg, but I've got to call you on this. We are talking about elections here, right? How much bigger of a tent is there than 49/50 states? Has there ever been a bigger cross-over than Democrats for Reagan? I doubt it. No, I think when you look in the dictionary under "Big Tent" you will see a picture of Renaldus Maximus, because he drew support from every part of the country, there were no hanging chads in Florida, or 50,000 votes in Ohio.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-17-06, 11:41 AM (EST)
|
|
46. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-17-06 AT 11:41 AM (EST)I know at least one Democrat above the Mason-Dixon Line who changed his party registration to Republican because of his support for Reagan. Me. But that's proof of nothing. All I know about Democrats supporting Reagan nationwide that isn't anecdotal is that: 1) as KF said, against a decent candidate (Walter Mondale), Reagan won 49 of 50 states, and 2) when Reagan became President, Republicans were a minority nationwide; when he left office, Republicans and Democrats were equal in number nationwide. Yes, Nixon won 49 states too, but he was running against "1000%-behind-you McGovern," so that's not at all the same thing.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mysticwolf 10692 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-18-06, 01:42 AM (EST)
|
|
55. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
Ah... I wondered who I'd cancelled out. Must have been you.  Afraid I was also one of those life-long Republicans that switched to Democrat after seeing that Reagan's "big tent" not only didn't welcome people like me, but did welcome any number of people (many of whom had, from what I could tell, never really entered any tent that wasn't presided over by a fire-and-brimstone type preacher). And, whatever my economic situation is now? At that time I was, at least marginally, in the economic range of people that his economic strategies were supposed to "help". But, socially, I couldn't agree with much of anything coming out of the party mouth. From a life intrusion pov it was now about as far from the original Republican ideals as I could imagine. And, economically, it made no sense - at leat looking at it from an upper, yet not uppermost, economic class level. As it turned out, that was the first time that we really felt an economic bite. DH ended up unemployed for most of his term, but I could pick up the slack. During Clinton things picked up again, with both of us employed, and life was good. The 6 years of Bush have about finished us off. DH has been pretty much unemployed since his election, and my job went away in the same time frame. And, so far, that light that's supposed to be at the end of the tunnel is getting dimmer and dimmer. Yeah, I'm sure that the economic policies and changes in taxation law helped someone. But, they didn't help me, or anyone else I know that was in the middle-upper class at that time. Literally everyone I know that was there at the same time we were? We're now, well... not lower class, because that class, from that time, got even lower than it had been. Let's call us the new upper-lower class. For the moment. I'm not at all sure where we'll be after another 2 years of this leadership, but I'm betting it's not going to be higher. If we're lucky we'll maintain as we did under Reagan and Bush. But, frankly, at least for dh and me, I'm starting to think any luck we had got expended in those years. Now, the people I knew that were upper class? They've maintained, as we did originally. Those I knew from the upper-upper class? They've done quite well. And, most of the people I know that finally enetered the political process based upon restrictive social policies and intrusions into people's privat lives? They're mostly about the same as they were before. But, most of them didn't rely upon an outside employer, per se, for their income when they decided to get involved. Those that had, or gained, a pulpit to use in support of those policies in the name of "republican", have actually done quite well. Lincoln would be turning in his grave, imo, to see what's been done in the name of the Republican party.  
Pack Alpha Status Accorded by Tribe blogging's scary
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
anotherkim 14420 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 10:20 PM (EST)
|
|
34. "Welcome to the RNM club!!" |
That would be the Republican No More Club...I'm the charter member. I agree with a great deal of what you said above, although I have some different opinions on issues now, the central reasons that I had my change of heart were:1. Iraq and the WMD and the expense
2. the constant invasion into personal liberties and freedoms
3. spend, spend, spend and never, ever make a meaningful cut
4. the pandering to the religious extremes and to the uber rich/corporate interests Now, I'm a realist and I know that those issues are not singular to the Republican party. I see Democrats that I can't agree with either. The clincher for me, however, was NCLB and the total and complete whoring of the education system for political purpose. If Bush was HALF as concerned about education as he claimed, he'd have insisted that some of the billions that we seem to have available were pumped into the infrastructure of the education system (schools, equipment, teachers in key urban and rural areas, etc.) AND that we were being drowned alive with illegal immigrant students who cannot speak English, are transient, and who have had poor medical interventions that leave them susceptible to any number of learning complications. 
--I voted for a Democrat for governor and will again, which is just flabbergasting to me personally, but I'm also going to vote Dem. in the Senate race, which would have been unheard of six years ago (hence my second vote for Frist *shudder*).
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 10:57 PM (EST)
|
|
35. "RE: Welcome to the RNM club!!" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-16-06 AT 10:59 PM (EST)Now don't get me wrong. There is absolutely NO chance that I'm going to change parties, nor do I want to abandon my party - but I need my party to come back to me and the Reagan roots that have made it so appealing to me. I seriously can't think of a single issue that I agree with the national Democrats on, so you might want to hold off on sending my membership application.  That being said, I agree with you partially on Iraq - I support the war, I am not happy with the execution or expense (where the heck is all that oil that was going to fund this thing). I agree 10000% on spending, it is shameful that my party could do nothing about that while holding all three branches of governement. NCLB is a challenge though. It obviously has several drawbacks and I hate the fact that many schools have started 'teaching to the test' but I do think that there needs to be some kind of system of accountability and an escape hatch for kids stuck in a bad school. Still, the original Senate sponsor of the bill was Kennedy and it passed by a 87-10 vote, so the idea had extreme bipartisan support. Obviously it needs to be relooked at and tweaked. Of course, I'd like to see vouchers brought into play on this issue as well (regardless, I'm wary of any federal involvement in this issue and always supported Reagan's proposal to eliminate the DoE), which is another position that the national Dems will never embrace either.
So, I am still a Republican. I just wondering if anybody in the leadership of my party is anymore.
Awesome to see you Kimmah!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
anotherkim 14420 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-17-06, 11:13 PM (EST)
|
|
53. "RE: Welcome to the RNM club!!" |
Oh, I know. I was just teasing you. And, frankly, I still find myself leaning to the "old" Republican ways in a lot of areas, but I refuse to label myself as a member of that group as long as they are in this...this...whatever one wants to call it.As for NCLB, well, I don't think it does diddly for kids in a bad school because most of them stay at the school anyway. AND, even worse, the "bad" school criteria is insane. My school was placed on the target list this year for failing to increase the graduation rate. We had ONE student who did not recieve a diploma for academic reasons (out of 40ish), but we also had three or four special ed kids who were given special ed diplomas because they didn't pass their Gateway exams, which are required for graduation in Tennesse. So, due to the ridiculously out-of-touch guideines, we had only an 88% graduation rate and that will get you blacklisted. All because in this day and age EVERY child is expected to learn Algebra or else their school must suck...it couldn't possibly be that Algebra (or English or Biology) might be a tough course for a child who cannot memorize or read on grade level or spell. Nope, it must be the crappy teachers (however, if the special ed kid who only goes to high school for two and half years and earns a whopping 10 "real" credits or less passes the exams, we hand over a "real" diploma and no one seems to care. The test was passed and the data is there so all is well). Ugh.  Miscellaneous Ramblings
--not a great day in my world thanks to the release of that fricking list.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Snidget 44369 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-19-06, 12:06 PM (EST)
|
|
60. "RE: Welcome to the RNM club!!" |
Let me see if I can find it because if it was true it sounded like one of our schools in a district most people will pay extra tens of thousands of dollars for a house just to get their kids in that district failed because one kid in one category????Ok here is a letter to the editor about that school http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/470608.html One disabled student failed a reading test and there isn't enough kids in that category to do stable statistics about progression, so the whole school is now a failing school. I do believe in standards and testing and all of that, but the way we are going about it just doesn't make much sense sometimes. 
It's a tribe creation!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Ante Bellum 3762 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"
|
08-21-06, 11:32 PM (EST)
|
|
62. "RE: Welcome to the RNM club!!" |
Oh yeah, it's all eeeeveeeeeeeel Teddy.What.ev.er. How about we just cut every upper-middle-class and above lout who send their kids to private schools a $10000 ckeck every year? Seriously. Cause then the poorer kids will have that much less money to fund THEIR education, and the richer folks can afford to donate and gift more to the aforementioned private schools. Because that is really what the so called "voucher" system is all about. It's all prettied up to make it sound like by some MIRACLE the poor kids will magically be able to teleport themselves to "better" schools (which they STILL couldn't afford even with the vouchers, but we'll ignore that logical disconnect), but it's still ALL ABOUT GIVING WEALTHY PEOPLE MONEY from the government. Here's an idea: Let's just repeal NCLB. Schools were demonstrably BETTER without that Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Then maybe we can start working on the other problems. Like there not being enough money to pay for music, art, P.E... you know.. those "optional" parts of education. 
Handcrafted by RollDdice I'll support school vouchers when it's actually shown that lower-middle-class and below kids ACTUALLY benefit. You know, the ones I see every damn day of every damn week, whose parent(s) can't afford to magically teleport them to these mythical better schools. And they can't afford bus passes for each kid, either. And they don't OWN an extra car to ferry kids to school while daddy goes to work. Oh wait, MOMMY is the one who goes to work 40-80 hours a week at minimum wage, and DADDY just ain't there. And they don't own even ONE car. Too EFFING bad.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-21-06, 11:48 PM (EST)
|
|
63. "RE: Welcome to the RNM club!!" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-22-06 AT 00:00 AM (EST)Let's just repeal NCLB. Schools were demonstrably BETTER without that Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. OK, I'll bite. Demonstrate. ETA: According to this study, it seems to be a mixed bag at worst.
In its first three years, the federal No Child Left Behind Act has succeeded in raising students' test scores in reading and math in 36 states and is narrowing the achievement gap between white and minority students in half the country, a new study finds. But at least 6,000 of the nation's worst-performing schools still are failing to show improvement, and state educators report they lack the money, know-how and teachers needed to meet President Bush's goal to have every student reading and doing math at grade level by 2014, concludes the report released March 23 by the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C.
But, the four of us had a great time.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 07:54 AM (EST)
|
|
65. "RE: Darn it!" |
Personally, I wasn't broaching the voucher debate - although I always think choice is a morally superior option when it doesn't take away someone elses choice. However a statement was made that NCLB made schools DEMONSTRABLY worse. I would like to see that statement evidenced.We have two kids in our school who moved over for academic reasons (thier school was failing) and I'll bet that they are pretty pleased with the opportunity to now attend a school that is rated excellent. Vouchers only expand that option. Look at schools in New Orleans, where about half of the kids go to private school (Catholic) because the public system is so awful and dangerous. So vouchers would seem to be a great idea there - in any urban setting where public transport is readily available. I fail to see where making schools actually have to do something aside from open their doors to get students would do anything negative at all. Lost funding? Well, they don't have as many students anyway. I would go a step farther and say that schools that do not meet certain minimum criteria over a period of time should be closed, turned private or made into a charter school. Accepting bad schools doesn't seem like a strategy to improve our students education. It seems to me that the bottom line is that people who support vouchers are more interested in making sure that students get a better education, whereas people who oppose them are more interested in improving schools. No one has bad motives, but there are different focuses. I don't think losing another generation of children to our struggling school system is the best answer. I don't think vouchers will give every single child a better education, but it WILL help some and it will expand opportunity for most. And for me, more opportunity is better. As I said, look at New Orleans. Look at how many parents at or near the poverty line pull money out of their own pockets to make sure that their children get some kind of decent education. And then tell me that vouchers are only for the rich and wouldn't help anyone.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 09:03 AM (EST)
|
|
66. "RE: Darn it!" |
Much of the information about test performance is based on only the students who actually take the tests. There are all kinds of reasons students can opt out. Schools find ways to make sure that some students need not test. So that skews the scores.Schools that do it right often find themselves punished for the most incredible reasons. A small enrollment coupled with one or two students who don't test well can make a school "failing." A school that performs well one year, but doesn't increase scores by enough the next year is "failing." And we won't even begin to discuss the time and effort teaching the test takes away from actual education. As someone who works in education, I can attest to the lack of many skills recent high school graduates have in writing, oral presentation, and problem solving in comparison to their ability to take a standardized multiple choice test. Hell, I used the same tactic to take the GRE and get a fabulous score in the math section (and I could go into the gymnastics I performed in college to avoid math courses, but that would take too much time). Suffice it to say, there are aspects of game theory that can be used to "figure out" how to answer standardized test questions without having any idea how to actually solve the question. And those tactics are quite easy to teach. I see students here every day who have fabulous SAT and ACT scores who are completely ignorant as to how to analyze, write a complete sentence, or do research. I also see every day schools that perform miracles with nothing. One failing school in our service area, Aliquippa, is a perfect example. It's a school, going by its test scores and its lack of resources, that you would say should be shut down. It's a school filled with students from low income families, who are minorities, and from single parent and/or dysfunctional households. Physically, the school is falling apart. The library no longer has stacks because the roof leaks so much that it was damaging the books (and it's on the first floor with two floors of classrooms above that also have buckets on the floors). It's on the failing list every year. But I see fantastically dedicated teachers, counselors, administrators, coaches, students, and parents who work hard to provide what well-rounded education they can and who produce students who may not test well, but can perform in an environment that gives multiple opportunities to measure learning in ways other than a standardized test. Vouchers would not help these people.
Some meaningful investment in their infrastructure, learning resources, extracurricular learning activities, and staff would be a much better investment of the tax dollars wasted on tests that really don't measure much. There's a reason most colleges do not count the SAT and ACT scores as the major indicator of projected performance in college. It's because we know that they have very little to do with ability to perform in a college classroom, let alone in the real world. And NCLB just encourages educators and parents to concentrate on the one thing these students will need least in both.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 09:36 AM (EST)
|
|
68. "RE: Darn it!" |
I hate the 'teaching to the test' method as well, and I'm glad to say that my kids are in a school that both scores well and most emphatically does not just teach to the test. That being said, it seems that some kind of standardized testing is necessary to in some way measure progress, achievement and knowledge. I just don't see any other potential method of measuring if our schools are doing the job that all taxpayers pay them to do. There needs to be SOME way of measuring whether or schools are teaching our kids what they need to know, and until something better comes along I don't see any other options to provide objective measurement of progress.There are definitely things that need to be fixed about NCLB. But there are also things that work in NCLB. This was a bipartisan effort and I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As I linked aboe, it has not been a cure-all but there has been measurable improvement in math and reading and the learning gap with minorities is closing. These are good things. Of course, there is bureaucracy and 'one-size-fits-all' solutions rarely work for everyone. These are bad things. In Texas, our worst schools recieved the most funding under a plan (about to be repealed, thank goodness) called Robin Hood that took funding from the wealthy school districts and gave it to the poor. Initially I even supported this because I don't think that rich kids deserve a better education just because of their parents. However, the poor districts got the money and scores stayed the same. The school districts with the highest per child funding did worse than the schools in safe neighborhoods with positive learning environments. That is why parents in NO send their kids to private schools and that is why vouchers can help. Because the parents who really do care about their childrens education will do their best to put them in a position to succeed - maybe not in 1st grade, but a 6th grader can certainly ride a city bus or subway. Again, there are no cure-alls. Will vouchers help everyone? Nope. Does NCLB solve all the problems? Nope. Will more money or better pay for teachers improve all schools? Nope. Will all three of these increase the likelihood that MORE students have more chances to learn and be successful? Absolutely.
But, the four of us had a great time.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 10:24 AM (EST)
|
|
80. "RE: Darn it!" |
So knowledge is subjectiveYes, but nobody said that because this is the case that it meant: learning is unmeasurable and we should just let kids run wild learning whatever they deem is appropriate without giving them grades? That seems silly to me. It is silly. It is silly because you just made it up --- and you made it up to be intentionally silly. You know very well that is not what I said (or even implied) or what Geg or anybody else said. Some of us have comment, however, on how certain forms of standardized testing do not effective measure the most important forms of learning. After all, Harvard isn't letting in many kids who didn't score well in school or on their SATs. And I can tell you that after teaching undergrads at one of Harvard's rivals that many students with high SAT scores possess a lot of "knowledge" but they do not have any idea in the world what it means or how to use it.    
Sigs by Seana and Syren. Bouncie by IceCat. One and Only WeinerGuy.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 10:01 AM (EST)
|
|
74. "RE: Darn it!" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-22-06 AT 10:06 AM (EST)I won't discuss the first issue on these boards any longer since it is way too sensitive and personal a topic and I have no interest in hurting anyones feelings even unintentionally, if I can help it. As to the second question, ending the life of another person is pretty limiting on their choices. ETA: I am still consuming the Volokh article, but it definitely approaches the issue from a prespective I understand and offers some serious food for thought.
But, the four of us had a great time.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
KeithFan 7422 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 10:10 AM (EST)
|
|
76. "RE: Darn it!" |
It would suck to be wrong, from either camp, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 11:46 AM (EST)
|
|
94. "RE: Darn it!" |
No one is denying parents the right to send their kids to any schools they want, the school voucher debate is simply a disagreement about methodology. Personally, I have my kids in the schools I want them in because of where I live.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 01:00 PM (EST)
|
|
97. "RE: OK" |
Okay, fine.Those parents have chosen to make that sacrifice and they must have some sort of assets to enable them to do that. They may have more intact families with more than one income. They may have worked with their children in the home so that they could qualify for scholarships and grants from the schools. They may have relatives who can pay. They may have employers who provide funding. So the children of crack addicts, alcoholics, and prostitutes must be punished because they were born without those resources? So those who don't or can't, screw 'em, right? The fact is, what I want is help them all. You only want to help some who you find "worthy" because they are able to access the resources that others can't or don't know how. You know, maybe the reason that the schools in New Orleans suck so much is that it has the highest population of below poverty level families who don't even make enough money to pay taxes. So the schools there don't have a tax base to provide any type of quality education. No money + no middle and upper class support = crumbling schools + incompetent educators. So the solution to that is to take more money from them? *boggle* And my objection (and I am not the only one) to providing tax dollars to religious institutions to the detriment of public non-religious institutions means nothing, too, I guess. I have no problem with you choosing whatever school you want for your kids. I support that completely. What I don't support is providing my tax dollars to support your choice to send your kids to a private school to the detriment of the public school you scorn. Your argument is that somehow you are being deprived of this choice. No, you are not. But the local public school should not be deprived of funding because of your choice. Why can't you sacrifice like those families in NO that you are so fond of pointing to as examples? Both of my nieces attend private schools. Both of their families are decidedly middle class, not even close to upper middle class. They sacrifice to do it. And they pay their school taxes each year with no complaint. Because they had a choice, knew the consequences, and feel no need to whine about it because they know there are students in their districts who are not so fortunate.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 01:23 PM (EST)
|
|
98. "RE: OK" |
Yeah, taking monies away from schools which have insufficient funds, that's a big flaw in the school voucher proposals. It's also a big mistake to think those programs could help absolutely every student, there is no one single answer which could achieve that.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-22-06, 05:09 PM (EST)
|
|
103. "*sigh*" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-22-06 AT 05:10 PM (EST)I believe we've covered the unrealistic aspects of this numerous times. I don't think there will be vouchers to cover the $9000/yr. my niece's private school costs every year for those poverty stricken families. Not to mention the $800-900 in uniforms, the transportation costs, etc., etc., etc. You're a lower-my-taxes kind of guy. To cover what it would cost an urban poverty level student to attend a private school is much less cost-effective than actually fixing and fully funding his/her current public school. And I haven't even begun the discussion as to how a voucher won't change the home atmosphere of those students who under achieve or fail altogether due to a million things happening at home that no school can address.
Edited to take out an extra adjective.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fishercat 4168 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
08-22-06, 07:07 PM (EST)
|
|
104. "RE: Welcome to the RNM club!!" |
Since we're going into NCLB and standardized testing, eh, I'll give my super fun opinion as the spoiled rotten private school student and my experience.I posted a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip only a little while ago which I feel applies all too well to most of American education. Calvin is sitting in the classroom taking a test. Test: When did the Pilgrims land at Plymouth Rock. Calvin writes down 1620. He then writes down "As you can see, I've memorized this utterly useless fact long enough to pass a test question. I now intend to forget it forever. Youve taught me nothing except how to cynically manipulate the system. Congratulations." He then says that the satisfaction of teaching makes up for the lousy pay. That pretty much summarizes everything wrong with the concept of standardized testing, teaching to the test, etc. (Full Disclosure: I am a superior standardized tester. I am easily able to take a general concept or formula and apply it to a question of situation. On the other hand, I'm poor at memorizing a lot of facts. Remembering whether a comma goes after or before quotes are closed, or what phylum a lion belongs to is not easy for me. I'm good in physics and math, but poor in remembering facts from books or biology. I went to a private school with no federal qualifications.). My first key concern is: how can any test tell how good a teacher or a school happens to be? I know the concerns about how if a school has fifty kids in a class, two are special education, two were ill and unable to perform up to capabilities, and two just simply test bad: they're suddenly a failing school. I'm not going to cover that, it's already been talked about. However, I'm talking about the quality of the educators. For example, I had two teachers. Teacher A: I had eleven assignments in one semester in his class and that was a high number. We spent a quarter of a year on the Civil War alone. If we were given a standardized test on what one would be expected to learn in 2/3 of U.S. History and World History, I'd be quite willing to say that we (as a class) would fail. Teacher B: We had at least one assignment a week (Current Event) along with a quiz each week (alternating between straight vocabulary and content). He was able to cover pretty much every area of the world from 1945-Present Day. His pace was predictable, he was essentially the prototype for a "by the book" teacher. And by that, I mean literally. I didn't take notes in his class: I highlighted the lines in the book that his notes came from. So, what were the results? Teacher A got the dedication of the yearbook in my junior year. He got his masters in history (I believe) that same year, and during my senior year: he left to teach at two universities. At this point, he and his wife are training to become members of the peace corps. He's pretty much universally regarded as one of the best teachers my peers and self ever had. He made us feel smart and like adults, learning under someone even more intelligent. He taught us how to write historical papers. I used my best paper for him (media and the Civil War) as my academic paper for two college apps: I got into both schools. Teacher B, a former Marine, was an extremely nice guy. He had a good personality and everything. However, he simply was not a good teacher. I would have sparkled on a standardized test with a cursory understanding of many historical events, but the class was generally regarded as both a joke (in classroom atmosphere) and unfairly difficult (his questions were often poorly worded and his answers were flat out wrong at times. The class culminated with a final exam: the wrong one (World History, not Modern. He repeated 10 questions in the 100 question exam, the Rwandan group was the "Titsis" and we could choose the option "non of the above" on many questions. Did I mention I got 100% on it? I honestly doubt it was corrected). In spite of really wanting to teach (from what I saw), he is not coming back next year. I'm not sure if that's his choice or the school's choice, but I have to think many students complaining got to someone. Sadly, I think the complaints were justified, as difficult as teaching is From Mr. Aubuchon (A), I improved my ability to write academically, how to concisely report information (I don't use that style here), how to read an article and glean the significance, how to relate back to Socrates and Plato and Locke and Hobbes. How Oklahoma! portrayed real life. How Uncle Tom's Cabin and Frederick Douglass portray the same time period and events in two completely different viewpoints. So on. My main point here is that no standardized test could encompass the difference between an Aubuchon and a Miller (B), in fact, it would probably rank Miller above Aubuchon. Why? Because Miller technically taught more per semester. But I remember a lot more about Aubuchon. That's the main thing that bothers me about "failing" schools and, someone said earlier, poor educators being gleaned from testing scores. If you gave one hundred 9th graders to Mr. Aubuchon and one hundred 9th graders to Mr. Miller, I am almost willing to guarantee two things Miller's would outperform Aubuchon's on a standardized, multiple-choice test about history at the end of each semester
Aubuchon's would outperform Miller's in everything else.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
08-16-06, 11:55 PM (EST)
 |
|
36. "RE: Why the GOP will lose in the fall" |
LAST EDITED ON 08-16-06 AT 11:56 PM (EST)PRE, PRE, PRE... I agree with your sentiments in part. The Republican congress has been disappointing in the spending that's gone on, and W hasn't used his veto but ONCE. I do think, make that know, that the dems would be even worse. Here is my little scorecard: 1. Iraq... a positive, largely going well, setbacks to be sure, but a lot has been accomplished.
2. Spending... a negative, esp that HUGE Medicare drug debacle along with PORK $$$ out the wazoo.
3. Securing the borders... pretty poor effort, some progress but not much.
4. Preventing terrorism and the overall war on terror... darn good here.
5. Abortion and related issues... doing about the best they can under the current constraints.
6. Supreme Court judges... a HUGE positive. Imagine if Kerry got to choose! ETA: 7. Tax cuts... a giant positive.
"A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog."
- Charles Doran
Rudy's Place
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Go Pack!
SMILES ARE FREE