Russ Feingold: Latest Idiot Hero to the Militant Left, Useless In Washington
- Thread starter PittsburghAfterDark
- Start date
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Cheese']Having the last word doesn't make you right, but whatever, good luck with that.[/quote]
I didn't say it did, but I still got it!
I didn't say it did, but I still got it!
Since Cheese is out for now I think I'll step in again at least for a few points .
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
The point is you think this current strategy is a failure and will inevitably lead to our defeat. I'm saying that the only real stat you can go on at this point, despite the fact that it's absurd to judge the success or failure of this conflict at such a premature stage, is the death count. That count is unprecendented, it's very low all things considered. [/quote]
Before I really discuss this it would probably be best to figure out exactly what criteria you would use to determine the success of current strategies (Forgive me if you've said it before, but just explain it here).
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
I'll admit I'm not very well-read on my theology, but I have a hard time accepting that the sects in Christianity are all that largely different with the only possible exception being between Catholicism and Protestantism. [/quote]
Then I think you would be very surprised. The hatred between certain sects of protestantism is at times as vicious as that between protestants and catholics. The core beliefs are usually the same, but how that applies to the present is always different between sects and sometimes radically so (think Mormon to Amish to Baptist; quite different). The protestant reformation gave a certain freedom to interpret religion to Christianity that most other religions haven't had. I suggest you go to www.religioustolerance.org if you want to learn more about individual sects.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
You criticize him for exercising his Constitutional rights. You don't have to believe in Jesus Christ or even God, that doesn't make any difference, but to call someone spooky because they're religious or not religious is just senseless religion or anti-religion bashing that would be better left out of the debate altogether. [/quote]
I think his criticism is valid. You have the Constitutional rights to do a lot of things, that doesn't necessarily make you a good leader. If an administration actually believes that there is no future to be had I don't think they would be concerned about it any further than keeping enough public support to stay in office.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Any media. All media. A poll is a group of people, close to .001 percent of the base it is supposed to represent, completely subject to whatever questions they're given and whatever answer choices they're given to answer. I don't buy it. It's stupid to buy into any poll no matter what it says. I'd much rather rely on an election.[/quote]
A well-done poll is actually very accurate. A small group of people can accurately represent the majority of the population if a representative sample is taken from the population (same percentage of different groups of people as the population itself, etc.). In fact, that's the basis of a representative government, the leaders are picked to represent the thoughts of a larger group of people. I don't know the exact methodology of those polls, but they can't be dismissed simply because they're polls.
The discrepancy between elections and polls can come when only a part of the population actually votes, of course. And ultimately that's what matters, so Politicians will ignore polls (no matter how accurate) as long as they can make sure their voting base is loyal and large enough, but it does make it more difficult to swing moderates.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
I don't spout anything, I say what I believe in. One thing I don't believe in is establishing a welfare state where those the succeed and do well in life are punished for it, and those who are
ups are rewarded for it. That's so completely backwards.[/quote]
The problem is that not everyone on welfare or everyone that requires state assistance is aup. No matter how many times it's repeated, not everyone has the same opportunities to succeed. Some barriers are physical and some are mental, both need to be removed, but when people genuinely need help then it should be given to them.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Let's not. I didn't say the word of God, I said the word "God." It's stupid to censor and restrict the learning process because we have to be PC everywhere we go. [/quote]
Yeah I read it that way the first time too, so I can see where Cheese was coming from. I think you're still failing to see that the large part of this debate doesn't have anything to do with the word "God," but the lack of scientific evidence supporting ID and the huge amount supporting Evolution. It's simply not an alternative.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Yeah, you get them by having sex, so don't do it. Simple as that. [/quote]
Kids aren't rational, most adults aren't rational. You can tell them 300 times about the STDs they will get when they , it doens't matter, they won't believe it happens to them, it only happens to other people. That thought process is what leads to all the drunk stupid college kids with STDs and friends that died while trying to race on the interstate or some shit. It's an invincibility complex, the best thing to do is tell them exactly how they can make it so that they can't get those STDs and that would be abstinence and since that doesn't work, birth control.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Again, those that stay in public schools will obviously give their vouchers to the public school, thereby keeping funds in that school. While as students leave so will funding, but as students leave there is that less of a need for the same funding. Lesser class sizes means more one on one time with teachers and students, more individual attention. Less kids mean less problems, less uniforms for sports, smaller auditoriums, less textbooks, etc. etc. etc. Cutting spending is easy when your school's population is cut in half.[/quote]
I don't think I fully understand the voucher program, if kids actually get vouchers to go to private schools at no cost to them then how is that different from public school? If the vouchers only pay part of the cost then how is that different than how it is now with the richer paying for education and poorer not? And would that not just inevitably lead to a three-tiered kind of system where more expensive private schools are built that don't use vouchers, then those that use vouchers, then public school? And how exactly would that fix the problem?
Maybe you could explain to me more how the system works.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Lest you forget, it's the parent's money to begin with, they earned it fair and square. Who are you to tell them that they're stuck with using that money on a shitty school where their kid isn't learning anything? [/quote]
Wouldn't it be better to fix the system than radically change it?
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
That has to do with it. America spends more money on education than any other country in the world. Throwing money at the problem has never been the solution. There could be two computers for every student and that doesn't mean that the student is going to learn better, it just means more money was thrown at the problem. We pamper our children like nobody's business. We can't stop them from having sex whenever they feel like, so we teach them how to do it. We can't stop them from goofing off in class, so we just let them slip to the next grade. Some teachers can't teach children without indoctrinating them with whatever agenda they have. [/quote]
How do vouchers solve this problem?
.[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
The point is you think this current strategy is a failure and will inevitably lead to our defeat. I'm saying that the only real stat you can go on at this point, despite the fact that it's absurd to judge the success or failure of this conflict at such a premature stage, is the death count. That count is unprecendented, it's very low all things considered. [/quote]
Before I really discuss this it would probably be best to figure out exactly what criteria you would use to determine the success of current strategies (Forgive me if you've said it before, but just explain it here).
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
I'll admit I'm not very well-read on my theology, but I have a hard time accepting that the sects in Christianity are all that largely different with the only possible exception being between Catholicism and Protestantism. [/quote]
Then I think you would be very surprised. The hatred between certain sects of protestantism is at times as vicious as that between protestants and catholics. The core beliefs are usually the same, but how that applies to the present is always different between sects and sometimes radically so (think Mormon to Amish to Baptist; quite different). The protestant reformation gave a certain freedom to interpret religion to Christianity that most other religions haven't had. I suggest you go to www.religioustolerance.org if you want to learn more about individual sects.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
You criticize him for exercising his Constitutional rights. You don't have to believe in Jesus Christ or even God, that doesn't make any difference, but to call someone spooky because they're religious or not religious is just senseless religion or anti-religion bashing that would be better left out of the debate altogether. [/quote]
I think his criticism is valid. You have the Constitutional rights to do a lot of things, that doesn't necessarily make you a good leader. If an administration actually believes that there is no future to be had I don't think they would be concerned about it any further than keeping enough public support to stay in office.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Any media. All media. A poll is a group of people, close to .001 percent of the base it is supposed to represent, completely subject to whatever questions they're given and whatever answer choices they're given to answer. I don't buy it. It's stupid to buy into any poll no matter what it says. I'd much rather rely on an election.[/quote]
A well-done poll is actually very accurate. A small group of people can accurately represent the majority of the population if a representative sample is taken from the population (same percentage of different groups of people as the population itself, etc.). In fact, that's the basis of a representative government, the leaders are picked to represent the thoughts of a larger group of people. I don't know the exact methodology of those polls, but they can't be dismissed simply because they're polls.
The discrepancy between elections and polls can come when only a part of the population actually votes, of course. And ultimately that's what matters, so Politicians will ignore polls (no matter how accurate) as long as they can make sure their voting base is loyal and large enough, but it does make it more difficult to swing moderates.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
I don't spout anything, I say what I believe in. One thing I don't believe in is establishing a welfare state where those the succeed and do well in life are punished for it, and those who are
ups are rewarded for it. That's so completely backwards.[/quote]The problem is that not everyone on welfare or everyone that requires state assistance is a
up. No matter how many times it's repeated, not everyone has the same opportunities to succeed. Some barriers are physical and some are mental, both need to be removed, but when people genuinely need help then it should be given to them.[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Let's not. I didn't say the word of God, I said the word "God." It's stupid to censor and restrict the learning process because we have to be PC everywhere we go. [/quote]
Yeah I read it that way the first time too, so I can see where Cheese was coming from. I think you're still failing to see that the large part of this debate doesn't have anything to do with the word "God," but the lack of scientific evidence supporting ID and the huge amount supporting Evolution. It's simply not an alternative.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Yeah, you get them by having sex, so don't do it. Simple as that. [/quote]
Kids aren't rational,
most adults aren't rational. You can tell them 300 times about the STDs they will get when they , it doens't matter, they won't believe it happens to them, it only happens to other people. That thought process is what leads to all the drunk stupid college kids with STDs and friends that died while trying to race on the interstate or some shit. It's an invincibility complex, the best thing to do is tell them exactly how they can make it so that they can't get those STDs and that would be abstinence and since that doesn't work, birth control.[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Again, those that stay in public schools will obviously give their vouchers to the public school, thereby keeping funds in that school. While as students leave so will funding, but as students leave there is that less of a need for the same funding. Lesser class sizes means more one on one time with teachers and students, more individual attention. Less kids mean less problems, less uniforms for sports, smaller auditoriums, less textbooks, etc. etc. etc. Cutting spending is easy when your school's population is cut in half.[/quote]
I don't think I fully understand the voucher program, if kids actually get vouchers to go to private schools at no cost to them then how is that different from public school? If the vouchers only pay part of the cost then how is that different than how it is now with the richer paying for education and poorer not? And would that not just inevitably lead to a three-tiered kind of system where more expensive private schools are built that don't use vouchers, then those that use vouchers, then public school? And how exactly would that fix the problem?
Maybe you could explain to me more how the system works.
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
Lest you forget, it's the parent's money to begin with, they earned it fair and square. Who are you to tell them that they're stuck with using that money on a shitty school where their kid isn't learning anything? [/quote]
Wouldn't it be better to fix the system than radically change it?
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']
That has
to do with it. America spends more money on education than any other country in the world. Throwing money at the problem has never been the solution. There could be two computers for every student and that doesn't mean that the student is going to learn better, it just means more money was thrown at the problem. We pamper our children like nobody's business. We can't stop them from having sex whenever they feel like, so we teach them how to do it. We can't stop them from goofing off in class, so we just let them slip to the next grade. Some teachers can't teach children without indoctrinating them with whatever agenda they have. [/quote]How do vouchers solve this problem?
Ace-Of-War
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SpazX']Since Cheese is out for now I think I'll step in again at least for a few points .[/quote]
As you can tell by my hesistation, I'm not particularly fond about continuing to beat this thread further into the ground.
Setting goals and achieving goals, simple as that. I.E. You set a goal of setting up a national vote, and you don't let anything stop you from achieving it. Specifically the largely successful parlimentary vote in December, the third time a national vote was held since Hussein was taken out. When you have a plan to have a vote in so-and-so month, and it goes off with very little violence and an almost 70% turnout rate despite threats of violence, long lines, and rough weather, that definetely says something about how successful our plans our turning out to be. It's a real testament to the power and foresight of this administration's foreign policy decisions.
As I said, I don't have an extensive background in theology, other than the basic differences between the actual religions I'm little help in discussions between individual sects of them. You're welcome to continue to preach (lol pun), but I have little to say about it.
Don't you understand? It doesn't matter. The way our system of government is formed, a President doesn't have to do what's popular for the sake of winning political ground. He doesn't have to pose for every photo-op and he doesn't have to spend his time reading the millions of polls released everyday and playing for the cameras. In other nations, specifically parlimentary styles of governing, the opposition party has the option of a vote of no confidence, but the American system is different. While it also holds the risk of lame duck status, I think it's a more than acceptable switch off to make when the President isn't campaigning every second of the day.
I'm not a believer in polls. While it may be true that they can be accurate, I think it's far too easy to sway the polls. Just the concept of a poll is questionable: You have a pollster who is human like everyone else, susceptible to his biases and that of who he works for. He has to ask questions that may or may not imply a certain response, with answer choices that may or may not encompass the complexity of any given issue. For example, if I were to ask you if illegal immigration was a bad thing, could you choose an absolute? Yes or no? Granted, some of them have other choices like "No answer" or "Neutral" but those do little to remedy a situation that is far too complex to be questioned in such a broad way. Likewise, a question like whether a President was doing a good job can be easily swayed. If gas prices are a huge issue with people, they might vote no just because of how high they are. Any comptent person can tell you the President has nothing to do with what the price of gasoline is, but does that mean it won't have an influence on the approval ratings? If you don't think so, I suggest you check out this graph. If it wasn't so shockingly similar I would probably have a lot more faith in these ridiculous polls.
It doesn't change the fact that elections actually mean something whereas polls do not. Polls are just a substitute for reporting real news. I mean, I can't tell you how many polls I saw that predicted Sen. Kerry would be the President of the United States.
No. No, I'll never ever think that way. We are just fundamentally on different sides here. If people genuinely need help then they should help themselves. There is no excuse to pick anyones pocket because of whatever tragedy in your life. In a nation like ours there is absolutely no excuse to fail. You have to try to fail, and you do so willingly. It is NOT the government's job to take care of you, and you do NOT have the right to have a successful life just because you reside in America.
I thought we came to agreement here?
And why is that the fault of the government? It's NOT the government's place to be raising anyone. If you make the idiotic decision to someone despite warnings to the contrary, it's YOUR FAULT. You can blame everyone else all day, but passing the buck gets you nowhere in my eyes. There's something to be said for personal responsibility. It's unbelievable how the left wants to continue to make excuses for this misbehavior and write it off as acceptable. If your child goes against your wishes, you don't say oh well, I don't have any control over their actions, they are to be punished.
In the most basic sense, parents have a voucher equal to that of the amount of taxes that parent pays into the school system in their area. If the school that their child attends isn't acceptable, or the child isn't being challenged in that school (which is probably the case for just about every kid in the U.S.), then that parent should have the right to take that same money that they pay in and transfer it to another school system that they'd rather have their child attend. In the case of private schools, that voucher could be part or all of the tuition to get into the school. While the school system misses that money, it also has one less child to teach and provide for, which balances out the equation. About 9,000 dollars is the national annual average of a K-12 public education. So the average public school doesn't dedicate that specific 9K to the child, the child's parents doesn't have to pay a for a school her child isn't using, and the child gets education that will actually teach them. I don't see a loser in that equation.
By throwing more money at it? If that hasn't worked in decades why would it work today? At least trying something different could force the public schools and teacher's unions to teach children instead of
Because the parent, not the government, has control of where there child will be taught. It rewards parents for becoming involved with their children's education instead of having to put up with it. It's a fresh idea that could really help improve the educational quality American children recieve. Competition will help the educational system grow, and it will force it to show real results.
.[/quote]As you can tell by my hesistation, I'm not particularly fond about continuing to beat this thread further into the ground.
Setting goals and achieving goals, simple as that. I.E. You set a goal of setting up a national vote, and you don't let anything stop you from achieving it. Specifically the largely successful parlimentary vote in December, the third time a national vote was held since Hussein was taken out. When you have a plan to have a vote in so-and-so month, and it goes off with very little violence and an almost 70% turnout rate despite threats of violence, long lines, and rough weather, that definetely says something about how successful our plans our turning out to be. It's a real testament to the power and foresight of this administration's foreign policy decisions.
As I said, I don't have an extensive background in theology, other than the basic differences between the actual religions I'm little help in discussions between individual sects of them. You're welcome to continue to preach (lol pun), but I have little to say about it.
Don't you understand? It doesn't matter. The way our system of government is formed, a President doesn't have to do what's popular for the sake of winning political ground. He doesn't have to pose for every photo-op and he doesn't have to spend his time reading the millions of polls released everyday and playing for the cameras. In other nations, specifically parlimentary styles of governing, the opposition party has the option of a vote of no confidence, but the American system is different. While it also holds the risk of lame duck status, I think it's a more than acceptable switch off to make when the President isn't campaigning every second of the day.
I'm not a believer in polls. While it may be true that they can be accurate, I think it's far too easy to sway the polls. Just the concept of a poll is questionable: You have a pollster who is human like everyone else, susceptible to his biases and that of who he works for. He has to ask questions that may or may not imply a certain response, with answer choices that may or may not encompass the complexity of any given issue. For example, if I were to ask you if illegal immigration was a bad thing, could you choose an absolute? Yes or no? Granted, some of them have other choices like "No answer" or "Neutral" but those do little to remedy a situation that is far too complex to be questioned in such a broad way. Likewise, a question like whether a President was doing a good job can be easily swayed. If gas prices are a huge issue with people, they might vote no just because of how high they are. Any comptent person can tell you the President has nothing to do with what the price of gasoline is, but does that mean it won't have an influence on the approval ratings? If you don't think so, I suggest you check out this graph. If it wasn't so shockingly similar I would probably have a lot more faith in these ridiculous polls.
It doesn't change the fact that elections actually mean something whereas polls do not. Polls are just a substitute for reporting real news. I mean, I can't tell you how many polls I saw that predicted Sen. Kerry would be the President of the United States.
The problem is that not everyone on welfare or everyone that requires state assistance is a
No. No, I'll never ever think that way. We are just fundamentally on different sides here. If people genuinely need help then they should help themselves. There is no excuse to pick anyones pocket because of whatever tragedy in your life. In a nation like ours there is absolutely no excuse to fail. You have to try to fail, and you do so willingly. It is NOT the government's job to take care of you, and you do NOT have the right to have a successful life just because you reside in America.
I thought we came to agreement here?
Kids aren't rational,
And why is that the fault of the government? It's NOT the government's place to be raising anyone. If you make the idiotic decision to
someone despite warnings to the contrary, it's YOUR FAULT. You can blame everyone else all day, but passing the buck gets you nowhere in my eyes. There's something to be said for personal responsibility. It's unbelievable how the left wants to continue to make excuses for this misbehavior and write it off as acceptable. If your child goes against your wishes, you don't say oh well, I don't have any control over their actions, they are to be punished. In the most basic sense, parents have a voucher equal to that of the amount of taxes that parent pays into the school system in their area. If the school that their child attends isn't acceptable, or the child isn't being challenged in that school (which is probably the case for just about every kid in the U.S.), then that parent should have the right to take that same money that they pay in and transfer it to another school system that they'd rather have their child attend. In the case of private schools, that voucher could be part or all of the tuition to get into the school. While the school system misses that money, it also has one less child to teach and provide for, which balances out the equation. About 9,000 dollars is the national annual average of a K-12 public education. So the average public school doesn't dedicate that specific 9K to the child, the child's parents doesn't have to pay a for a school her child isn't using, and the child gets education that will actually teach them. I don't see a loser in that equation.
By throwing more money at it? If that hasn't worked in decades why would it work today? At least trying something different could force the public schools and teacher's unions to teach children instead of
Because the parent, not the government, has control of where there child will be taught. It rewards parents for becoming involved with their children's education instead of having to put up with it. It's a fresh idea that could really help improve the educational quality American children recieve. Competition will help the educational system grow, and it will force it to show real results.
bread's done