Republicans Come here

[ET Warrior]

1.)Because the tax cuts were for people in higher tax brackets. More wealthy people save more money, and the poor people still have to pay the same taxes.

 

2.)Almost all the countries in the WORLD are pissed, not just the middle east, all the ones who thought we should have, you know, listened to the UN when they told us NOT to invade a sovereign nation that was a minimal threat to anyone outside of their borders.

 

3.)Link? Proof? What are they offering that we really needed?

 

5.)I want to know just what they did that wasn't common sense, and we REALLY needed an entire department where we dump a ton of our tax dollars (Which of course, the government has less of after those tax breaks ) In fact, in my state there was a volunteer fireman house that was given 100,000 dollars from the department of homeland security, and they spent it on a brand new gym for the firefighters to work out in. wow, the terrorists will flee from our firemen with big muscles!!!

 

6.)I haven't watched any Kerry ads. The news about the underfunding of the No Child Left Behind act has been around since G.W. first ran it through. It has accomplished almost nothing.

[El Sitherino]

You watch way too much republican rhetoric. Kerry has never attack Bush, so stop spouting that crap.

 

It is underfunded, you ever hear of a channel called cspan? I suggest you watch it, see your government in action.

 

98% of these tax cuts go to the rich.

the other 2% go to particular middle class.

 

also, Pakistan could care less about us.

 

also, We barely crutched Al Queda. And the taliban is still around.

 

 

also, pretty much everyone hates us.

[jack "odc" one.]

Originally posted by yaebginn

murder- the unsanctioned killing of another.

Who is allowed to "sanction" a killing? Who has to be asked? I cannot think of anyone who would have the right to do so.

 

If i ask my mother i can kill your mother, then this seems to be sanctioned for me. I am fine, my mother is are fine, yours is dead and you are happy because it was not murder? (mother said it would be OK..)

 

kill- to deprive of life or vitality; put to death; cause the death

That is correct. Killing (or putting to death) is a very common thing in nature (and so life). One species kills another (not the whole species, of course) to survive. Killing within the same species is also not uncommon, but "higher" species usually don't have killing on their everyday-activity-list.

 

Murder is killing that is unlawful, kill can be that, but it also can be like, a soldier shooting an enemy, or a criminal being put to death. Killing can be murder, but murder cant be killing by definition. It may not make sense, heres an example.

 

That made no sense, since 'murder' implies killing (In your definition: putting someone to death without sanction). Therefore murder would be killing, but killing not necessarily murder.

 

Killing is mainly the process of 'putting someone to death' as you've already said. If someone dies by the hand of another it is always killing. Now murder comes into play if a third person feels not really happy with this. That 'terrorist' or enemy you kill might have a girlfriend or a wife, who surely will say "You murdered my husband" or his mother will say her son was murdered.

All that while you think you 'just killed' him because whoever said it would be right and it 'was sanctioned'.

 

So murder is a very subjective thing and has 'nothing' to do with the act of killing itself, only so far as it is an 'interpretation' of it, while killing itself is 'normal business' and the real act of putting someone to death.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by yaebginn

Now for Bushs accomplishments.

1. He cuts taxes.

 

Blah, blah, blah. I've paid taxes as an adult since 1984. You know what? I never notice the tax cuts or increases. Wanna know why? Because at my meager salary, it was never more than a few dollars. Bush cutting taxes to the extent that he did is a good reason to fire the guy. It is certainly not an accomplishment unless you call cutting income in a time that you're doing the most spending an accomplishment. If you do, you don't need to be in charge of anything.

 

The Bush tax cuts did, however, have a very positive effect on those that make more than $200,000/year. The fallacy associated with this by Bush apologists is that these wealthy people are the ones who can stimulate the economy and reinvest in business, yada, yada, yada. But the reality of this is that this is an assumption. And a poor one at that. This is the so-called "trickle-down" economics of the Reagan years that economists still haven't claimed were successful. The only thing I know for sure about the wealthy is that they didn't get wealthy by spending their money.

 

# 1 is a failure, not accomplishment.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

2. Took out AlQuada training camps and alot of Taliban.

 

I can give him that. Partially. He launched a military campaign on Afgahnistan and put them on the run, ousting them from their little camps, and the Taliban no longer rule the nation.

 

But then Bush gave up. Bush left a token size force of troops in Afgahnistan and attacked Iraq because it was on the neo-conservative agenda even before he got into office. Now watch closely, becaue here's the part where I show Bush as a traitor to the American people: He abandoned the so-called War on Terror and focused on Saddam Hussein, using lies and deception as well as recent feelings over 9/11 to get us in there. As of today, 947 American servicemen have given their lives to Bush so he can secure the second largest oilfield in the world next to Saudi Arabia's. That's nearly a full 1/3 of the number killed on 9/11. And we still haven't got bin Laden. We created a hot-bed of resentment toward us as well as a new training ground and recruiting center for Al Qaeda.

 

#2 is a failure, not an accomplishment

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

3. Got Pakistan on our side.

 

Cool. Not that they had a choice, but great.

 

#3 is an accomplishment.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

4. Got Libya to hand over their weapons.

 

You think that was all Bush, eh? The Libyan diplomacy was in the works long before Bush got into office. In fact, I believe it was Madeline Albright that paved the way for much of the diplomacy with Libya that led to Qadafi's recent announcement. Perhaps the attack on Iraq was a motivator, but I see it likely as a convenient distraction. The rest of the Arab world is focused on Iraq and less likely to be critical of Qadafi's decision. I don't think you can give Bush credit for this one, since Albright was put on this by Clinton.

 

#4 goes to the Reagan, Bush (the father) and Clinton admins. Not to Bush (the traitor).

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

5. Created Department of Homeland security.

 

Yeah. They're effective. I learned another use for duct tape. Tom Ridge gives us all warnings of terrorist acts that are based on information 3-years old, such as the "financial institution" warning of last weekend. That information was ancient, out-of-date, and only useful in trying to keep the general populace scared, which is helpful in reelections.

 

Homeland security is a joke. But you're right, Bush accomplished it.

 

#5 is an accomplishment.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

6. Created no child left behind act.

 

This is another clear reason why Bush is a traitor to the American people. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) had overwhelming support when it was introduced in the House and the Senate. And it should have. What person in their right mind wouldn't want to ensure that children in the country had an equal chance at securing an effective education in public school? What person in their right mind would not be in favor of making sure that education was meeting the needs of every child in public school? In fact, the Senate voted 98-1 in favor of the law.

 

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has intended this to be a vehicle of propaganda and a way to rally public support. There has been little financial support for the law by the administration since its enactment. Moreover, NCLB relies to heavily on testing, which appears to have the effect of eliminating from curricula anything that isn't on the test. Teachers have no incentive to teach beyond the test and, from my personal observation with the Dallas Independent School District, they may even receive mandates to focus on the tested material only.

 

Nancy Pelosi, the Senate Minority Whip, said, " President Bush and congressional Republicans have refused to honor their commitment -- for 2004 they provided nearly $8 billion less for No Child Left Behind than they had promised just two years before."

 

There is also much indication that Bush's tax cuts, which rule out the possibility of funding NCLB, have created situations in which local governments (state, county and city) have to raise property taxes within their districts in order to ensure that their schools are meeting the minimum requirements set in the NCLB mandate. This has effectively cancelled out any "tax cuts" the President has given to the poor and middle class citizens of our country.

 

Susan B. Neuman was the U.S. Department of Education's assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education until January 2003. She recently told a meeting of the International Reading Association in Reno, Nev., that she worries that the most vulnerable children are still being left behind, despite the law that she helped implement.

 

In Republican-dominated Utah, the superintendent of the state's largest school district estimated it would cost $182 million over the next 10 years to implement all the provisions of No Child Left Behind, compared to the $2.2 million per year it now receives in federal aid. And in Republican-dominated Ohio, a study for the state department of education estimated the cost of compliance with the law to be $149 million per year.

 

#6 is a failure, not an accomplishment.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

skinwalker, your calling Bush a traitor is as far out as Van Lingo callign you a racist. You didnt like being called a racist, did you?

 

Except I can back it up. Treason is defined as a crime that undermines the offender's government; disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior; an act of deliberate betrayal. I've pointed out Bush's undermining, disloyal, and deliberate betrayals in the above post.

 

1) He abandoned the so-called War on Terror and bin Laden has not been brought to justice for the murder of approximately 3000 American and foreign citizens during the 9/11 attacks (betrayal).

 

2) He ordered vast quantities of troops and supplies to Iraq for an invasion on a sovereign nation based on the deception created by his administration that WMDs were present as well as clear and viable links to Al Qaeda. He told us it was to remove WMD and attack terrorists. Neither were there. (undermined the effectiveness of our military)

 

3) Tax cuts and unwillingness to follow-through with the No Child Left Behind Act that he promoted so adminantly has subverted the educational process.

 

References

 

Dobbs, Michael (2/19/04). "More States Are Fighting 'No Child Left Behind' Law: Complex Provisions, Funding Gaps In Bush Education Initiative Cited," Washington Post

 

Driscoll, W & Fleeter, H (12/12/03). "Projected Costs of Implementing the Federal 'No Child Left Behind Act' In Ohio" Ohio Department of Education http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/CostOfImplementing.pdf

 

Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy (5/12/04). "Reading Experts Offer Insights Into State, Federal Policies," Education Week http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=36Read.h23

 

Pelosi, Nancy (2004). January 7, 2004 Press Statement. Quoted at http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=413

[yaebginn]

ok, I got alot of typing to do. since Skin is the brains of my opposition (no offense to ET and Insane and jack, u guys are smart, just theres no denyin that Skin is the smart one) so I'm gonna ignore what ET and Insane said and focus one Skins morew intelligent answers and jacks murder thing.

 

Jack- Government can sanction a killing. We are to more or less obey the goverment if it doesnt contradict what God says. And no, if the terrorists had brains, they wouldnt call it murder. we are at war. unless they busted in a med facility and capped a bunch of unarmed, hurt soliders, then its not murder. and no, because your mom doesnt have the authority to tell you to kill someone. no it did make sense. you see, killing is not as bad as murder. it can be sanctioned, it isnt always neccessarily a crime. But murder cannot backtrack and go down to the level of killing, which isnt as bad. its confusing.

 

Skinwalker-

1. How exactly is it a failure? The little guy doesnt end up getting screwed. He saves a few bucks. That is so selfish, man. I'm by no means, overflowing with cahs, either. But do you realise how selfish that is? 'Bob is making more money than me,' is what it comes down to. Someone else is amking more money than you, it doesnt affect you in any way. You are saving the same percentage as he is, but because he has either worked harder, or got luckier, he is making more, and you are griping. That doesnt screw the little guy at all. Therefore its not a failure. It does exactly what it was meant to do.

2. All you democrats always whine about how bush wnats the oil. Then why am I paying 2 bucks a gallon for gas? And he didnt abandone the war on terror. he took down a bigger threat. Saddam was a much bigger threat than Osama. And now hes captured.

4. it is Bush. There's no way I'm gonna let you get away with that one. Even if they were planing eventually to do it anyway. Bush's taking over Iraq gave them a kick in the pants, and so they gave them up. If you're gonna say its those past presidents, then how come as soon as Bush takes over Iraq, Libya gives is weaponss up, eh? Coincidence?

6. And no, he funded it well, but its up to each individual state to keep it going. Because alot of the school systme is more of a local issue. He started it and funded it to get the ball rolling, what the individual states want to do with it is up to them.

 

For starters, our own intelligence and Bristish intelligence said there were WMDs. another thing, how can you without a doubt say that even if Bush did betray the country, how can you say it was deliberate? and if anyone, kerry is a traitor. to his fellow veterans. I dont want to give him a chance to betray us. He was all buddy buddy iwth them. then went back and accused them of war crimes. hmm. and dont get started with the bin laden thing. Clinton coulda caught Bin Laden, but he let him slip through his fingers. Besides, how can Bush be accused of not finding anyone. I mean, well, he can be accused of anything. but how can you look down on him for it. He didnt find someone. ok, so. its not like he had him, then let him go, he just cant find him, but he did catch saddam. a much bigger threat. I already addressed the last treason thingy in my accomplsihments thing above.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Yeah. They're effective. I learned another use for duct tape. Tom Ridge gives us all warnings of terrorist acts that are based on information 3-years old, such as the "financial institution" warning of last weekend.

 

Tom Ridge! That's the name of the guy in charge, I was going to comment but couldn't remember his name. The man has really helped us out here, I mean, not only did he tell us that duct tape was going to save us from a chemical attack..he also gave us that convenient color coded terrorist alert system.

 

Now, using duct tape to save us from a chemical attack? The only way I can think of using Duct tape to prevent those chemicals from killing me is if I wrap the duct tape around my mouth and nose so I stop breathing and suffocate before the chemicals get to me. This 'buy duct tape and you'll be safe' theory reminds me of those videos they showed during the cold war of how children should hide under their desks in case of a nuclear attack...

 

 

And the color system was just a joke. What exactly am I going to do if they tell me we're at an orange alert? Punch every arab person I see in the face and call the police? There's nothing you CAN do because terrorists are not conspicuous until they are already DOING something. The only thing it does is keep the people afraid and makes it easier for the governement to do whatever they want without questions.

[ET Warrior]

Government can sanction a killing. We are to more or less obey the goverment if it doesnt contradict what God says. And no, if the terrorists had brains, they wouldnt call it murder. we are at war. unless they busted in a med facility and capped a bunch of unarmed, hurt soliders, then its not murder. and no, because your mom doesnt have the authority to tell you to kill someone.

 

What if their governemnt SANCTIONED them going into a hospital and shooting the wounded soldiers? I mean, they were going to be shooting back at them once they got better, it was just a pre-emptive strike. It's not murder because their government said it was okay. And why doesn't your mom have authority to tell you who to kill? why does only your government get that right? What makes them so much smarter than your own mother?

 

 

1.)It's a failure because it only helps the wealthy, who don't NEED more money, and who aren't going to SPEND more money. The people that HAVE the money to give to the government aren't giving it, and the poor people still have to carry the same burden.

 

2.) You do realize that the US pays less per gallon of gas than pretty much any other nation in the world? Just in case you didn't know that, it's true.

 

6.)no, he didn't. This was a government program, it was THEIR job to fund it. You can't just pass it off as the states themselves underfunding it. You also failed to comment on how even if the states have to fund it they have to increase property taxes to pay for it, completely negating the tax cuts, and even putting MORE burden on the lower class citizens

[yaebginn]

Then the soldiers could do it, and if there was blame to be had, it'd fall on the one who issued the order. war isnt pretty.

 

1.What burden exactly? and it doesnt really help the rich any, its simply taking the percent they pay in taxes, and decreasing it. its not biased, if you make a low amount of money, the percent will still be the same, but represent a lower amount of money. and you still havent explained how its screwing the little guy.

 

2. Yeah, I had a talk with my dad on the subject about two and a half weeks ago, maybe a bit more, everytihngs been flying by so fast lately. but we are still paying more than before, if we are taking their oil, its not showing.

 

6. No, because the specifics of education is a state issue, not national, because there are 50 states, and that why we have a governor and other state positions, to work in detail those things. Bush funded them well at the start, its the states issue aboiut funding the rest of the way.

[ET Warrior]

1.) You apparently don't understand how income taxes work. It's not a striaght percentage tax like sales tax. It's a complicated mess involving your income and how you spend your money and so on. George Bush's tax breaks offer a higher PERCENTAGE break to the wealthy.

 

2.) I think everyone knows that we're paying more than we were before, but the point is still that we are paying a great deal less than other countries, why is this do you think?

 

6.) But the actual PROGRAM is a national program. NOT a state program. He underfunded his own program to help education, and if you were old enough to be in college right now, you'd know that the government is currently pulling funding away from higher education as well.

[yaebginn]

1. But that still doesnt take anything away from the little guy. sorry to burst your bubble.

2. Yeah, so if we're paying more, how does that mean we are taking thier oil. think it thorugh, u r making no sense and sounding like u arent listening to reason and bent on that Bush is evil, even thoughyour points are invalid.

6. He funded it the right amount, and then left it to the states to carry it on, as they should. They didnt. and I am old enough to be in college, I am just not.

EDIT- what I mean by that is that there is no set age to go to college., There have been 11year olds who have gone to collge.

[ET Warrior]

1.) I dont think you've ever taken an economics class, because it seems that you cannot grasp the effects of his tax cuts, so I'm ignoring your arguments against it, because they are uninformed and blatantly incorrect.

 

2.) We're paying more NOW, but we're paying LESS than EVERYONE ELSE, because we have a source of oil that they don't have, YOU are the one who refuses to listen to reason, you just refuse to believe that your pal G.W. has less than honest intent in anything he does.

 

6.) Fair enough, if you were IN college you'd know. But you're not.

Show me proof, give me evidence that NCLB was funded enough by the federal government. I'm pretty sure that there was no stipulation in the act that said after he started it the states were supposed to run it. It's HIS act, it's HIS responsibility to make sure it's working.

 

Edit - and you STILL haven't addressed the fact that states would have to raise property taxes to pay for the act by themselves, and raising property taxes after those tax cuts REALLY screws the little guy.

[yaebginn]

1. I dont grasp your views on his tax cuts, because I'm not a democrat. I am fo Bush, therefore, my opinions of him are biased. You are against Bush, resulting in a biased opinion on the opposite side.

2. But we are still paying more than before. Why would more oil mean more money for gas?

6. I posted a link earlier, its still on this page, unless this post ends up being the start of a new page. it says he gave 8 million to fund it or so, I forget the exact amount. and no, its not his responsibility. He created a program and fundd it, its up to the states what they do with it.

 

It doesnt screw the little guy any more than the big guy.

[ET Warrior]

1.) No, you don't grasp my views because you apparently don't understand the American economic system, and in particular don't understand income taxes.

 

2.)Because the oil companies want your money.

 

6.)wow. 8 million dollars, for an entire nation. That's just super. I think even if you mixed up your 0's and he gave 8 BILLION he underfunded it. Do you have the slightest idea how many schools there are in the United States?

 

Lets make a really small guess. Lets say there are...10,000 schools in the United States. 8 million dollars means that every school got....800 dollars. If he gave 8 billion that means every school got 800,000 dollars. Now that seems like a lot, but of course I gave a really modest estimate of the number of schools in the United States, and 800,000 dollars can be spent VERY quickly when it comes to school supplies. He underfunded it. BIG time. The states shouldn't be forced to make up for his failures.

 

 

and it DOES screw the little guy more than the big guy, because the BIG guy got a huge TAX cut that the little guy didn't get.

[yaebginn]

but how does that take away any from the little guy? and

 

1. I understand economics well, enough, and this part of the debate is about politics, not economics. I tall dependson who ur voitng for, or supporting.

2. so now its the oil company?

6. maybe it was 8Billion, bheck the link , I have no idea. and he just got the ball rolling. its up to the individual states to keep it going.

[ET Warrior]

1.) You apparently do NOT understand it well enough, as you seemed to think that income tax was a staight percentage off of your income, which is completely wrong.

 

2.) I never said it was Bush that was charging you for your gasoline, he's merely providing a source to the oil companies. In fact, Haliburton was the FIRST company that got a contract to deal with the oil fields in Iraq when this war was started.

 

6.) Sure, lets just pass the blame elsewhere for the failures of Bush. You still seem to ignore the fact that the only way the states can fund NCLB is by increasing property taxes which KILLS small business and poor people.

 

 

 

Edit - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/education/19EDUC.html?ex=1091937600&en=f43832c00be47e24&ei=5070

 

There's an interesting read on NCLB

[yaebginn]

1. We hadnt specified we were talking about income tax.

2. But first you were blaming Bush, now oil companies.

6. For starters, anything from the ny times is sickeningly biased. and it doesnt necessarily increase property tax. and it doesnt kill little businesses, especially if they get as little as you say from trax cuts.

[ET Warrior]

1.)We were talking about Bush and co's tax cuts. What did you think they were cutting? Sales tax?

 

2.)You are simply trying to divert the problem on this one, refusing to acknowledge what has happened. I'm done trying to debate this point with you.

 

6.) If the states aren't going to increase property tax, where is the money for NCLB going to come from? The only way government makes money is off of TAXES, which is why we have them in the first place, and increasing property taxes DOES kill small business, because they cannot afford to keep their business open long enough to earn a profit, because they don't have the advantage of advertising and established chains.

[yaebginn]

1. No, but there's alot of different kind of taxes. Since you are obviously more educated in this area then me, enlighten me, how exactly does tax cuts work off an income tax?

6. For starters, The country cant afford to keep shoveling out cahs to every state. its the states problem, not Bushes.

[ET Warrior]

Well, as far as tax cuts go, some tax cuts are given to people in certain tax brackets. Your tax bracket is usually determined by your total income, and some of the things you've spent your money on. (Giving to charities means that money is not taxed, I believe)

 

Bush' tax cuts were designed to have the biggest impact on people in higher tax brackets, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

 

 

 

For starters, The country cant afford to keep shoveling out cahs to every state. its the states problem, not Bushes.

Of course the country can't afford it, not after all those ridiculous tax cuts. I'm just curious how you expect the STATES to come up with the money to support it though, aside from the increased property taxes that have already been mentioned

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by yaebginn

1. How exactly is it a failure? The little guy doesnt end up getting screwed. He saves a few bucks. That is so selfish, man. I'm by no means, overflowing with cahs, either. But do you realise how selfish that is?

 

I'll tell you what's selfish: selfish is ensuring that your income bracket gets a hefty tax break while giving the middle class a little over $300. Because of that $300, a significant number of federally assisted institutions in the nation will not receive federal-matching funds (multiply 300 by a few million tax-payers). I'm talking about everything from waste disposal to police/fire departments to education (NCLBA) to youth programs (Boys & Girls Club, etc.) and more.

 

You should ask yourself: what happens when thousands of local programs can no longer get money from the federal government in the form of grants, stipends, and matching funds? The state, county, and local governments increase taxes. So a $300 tax-cut could easily be off-set, even more than off-set, by local property & sales tax increases. This is something that occurred all over the nation. I'm a homeowner and can tell you that my property taxes are much higher than they were three years ago. But this couldn't keep the local Boys and Girls Club from shutting its doors to thousands of kids in the Dallas-Fort Worth area this summer, leaving teens to the street, thus adding to the juvenile crime problem, which, in turn, adds to the costs of countering/dealing with that crime. Ironically, the Dallas County Juvenile Department is facing serious cutbacks as juvenile crime increases.

 

That's one way the little guy gets screwed.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

2. All you democrats always whine about how bush wnats the oil.

 

I'm a Republican. I rarely vote for Democratic candidates. In fact, I'm planning on voting for more Republicans this November than Democrats. I do however plan to vote for two Democrats in particular.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

Then why am I paying 2 bucks a gallon for gas?

 

Which is very little compared to the rest of the world. But gasoline is but one of the uses petroleum has. Everything that's made with plastic also requires the importation of oil. The oil fields of Iraq are years away from being fully taken advantage of, but the main result of securing these oil fields may actually be that OPEC will continue to use the Dollar as the base currency instead of the Euro. That will have a great impact on the American economy if it were to occur. So much so, that I would almost be willing to give Bush & Co. my full backing if they were to state this as the reason for invading Iraq.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

And he didnt abandon the war on terror. he took down a bigger threat. Saddam was a much bigger threat than Osama.

 

In what way, exactly? Explain to me how a contained regime with no WMD (or even with chemical and biological weapons is more dangerous than a rouge enemy without a home nation to attack or contain and has demonstrated the ability to engage in massive attacks on American soil.

 

That, my friend is a very reaching attempt at justification and is quite telling about your willingness to put all faith in your radical government leaders without question. Which implies a cult of personality

 

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

4. it is Bush. There's no way I'm gonna let you get away with that one. [...] how come as soon as Bush takes over Iraq, Libya gives is weaponss up, eh? Coincidence?

 

Think what you will. Bush didn't "take over Iraq," the U.S. military did. But certainly the Iraq invasion had an influence, but this type of diplomacy doesn't occur overnight or even in the span of a few months. The previous administrations worked on improving diplomatic relations with Libya for a good reason: economically, Libya was an important nation to both the African and European continents prior to the sanctions imposed. Qadafi was economically and diplomatically driven, not frightened into submission as Bush believers would have the world think. If Qadafi was that timid, he would have caved in 1986 when Reagan bombed Libya, killing his daughter.

 

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

6. And no, he funded it well, but its up to each individual state to keep it going. Because alot of the school systme is more of a local issue. He started it and funded it to get the ball rolling, what the individual states want to do with it is up to them.

 

Unfortunately, its not really that simple. The Act set into place certain mandates that are impossible without funding. In February 2003, the bipartisan National Governors Association voted unanimously to label as such. A November 2003 survey (Farkas, November 2003: p.11) of nearly 2,000 superintendents and principals found that 9 in 10 viewed it as such.

 

In addition, there are many unintended consequences related to the NCLBA that will be felt because inadequate funding was present to match the mandated expectations. The curricula will narrow in order to meet only those topics tested on (teaching to the test) and schools that cannot meet the minimum requirements of passed tests/number of tests completed will get "failing" scores on their "report cards" if this occurs two years in a row. Here's the consequences of this:

• Truant youth cannot be counted if they don't take the test, therefore expulsions will increase (lets not go down the road of why kids are truant, there are far more reasons than you might imagine, and not all are necessarily the responsibility of the kid) so as to eliminate those that might not take the test from the rolls. This will improve the percentage of tests completed.
  
• Studies have demonstrated that schools in economically deprived regions have lower academic achievement (Mathis, 2003), particularly in reading and math skills (again, the reasons are cultural and not a "you get what you deserve" answer). Most of these children are Black and Latino.
  
• Studies have also demonstrated (Mathis, 2003) that achievement can be had, but it costs money. Not in special equipment or even the best textbooks (though the latter needs to be sufficient), but rather the costs are spent in salaries: more teachers working more hours.
  
• Because the NCLBA provides that parents with children attending schools that receive a "failing" grade can have their children attend alternate schools with "passing" grades (to include transportation), the expected outcome can be nothing other than the "passing" schools becoming the "failing" schools as they inherit the same problems the previous schools faced: overcrowded classrooms, academically challenged youth, too few teachers, academic-related behavioral problems, etc. I remember forced-busing as a child.. this sounds very familiar
  

 

There are other consequences and caveats as well. I recommend Mathis (2003), the link of which is in my references. In addition, there are a number of citations in his own references that point to valuable information.

 

No Child Left Behind was a good idea, but like so many of the things politicians do, it is very likely just an appeal to a constituency. Its up to the citizenry to hold them accountable and make this work. It has to be funded somehow, or it will not.

 

 

 

 

References

 

Farkas, et al (November 2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what's needed to fix public schools. Wallace Foundation.

 

Matthis, William (2003). No Child Left Behind: Costs And Benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 84, No. 9: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305mat.htm

[jack "odc" one.]

Originally posted by yaebginn

Jack- Government can sanction a killing. We are to more or less obey the goverment if it doesnt contradict what God says.

I am not on this earth to obey. I'm willingly to support a state that enables me to live my life. But obeying is just not what i was raised up like.

 

And no, if the terrorists had brains, they wouldnt call it murder. we are at war. unless they busted in a med facility and capped a bunch of unarmed, hurt soliders, then its not murder.

The point is, there is not really such thing as murder. Killing or "murder", there is always the same result. Someone is dead in the end. now while the "killer" (you) might say i just killed someone (an enemy), the mother of the killed person might say her son was murdered by the enemy (you).

It depends to the point of view, wether if it's considered "just killing" or "murder".

 

and no, because your mom doesnt have the authority to tell you to kill someone.

I wasn't talking about authority. And so wasn't you. It was about sanctioning. And my mother can sanction what she wants to.

 

no it did make sense.

No, it made not. According to your definition, murder would be killing, but killing not necessarily murder. Not vice versa.

 

you see, killing is not as bad as murder. it can be sanctioned, it isnt always neccessarily a crime. But murder cannot backtrack and go down to the level of killing, which isnt as bad. its confusing.

Simply no. Putting someone to death= someone saying "It's OK. It's just killing." = someone saying "OOH NO! He got murdered!"

Always. It just depends to the point of view.

 

To bring up another (bad?) example: The holocaust was surely sanctioned by the nazis, but it's complete irrelevant if you're a nazi and call it killing or a (for instance) relative of a holocaust victim and call it murder. It is also complete irrelevant if it's considered crime by these or not crime by those.

It was a horrible desaster in human history. Why? Because thousands of people where following and obeying blind (regardless of why they did so) to a "government" which "sanctioned" it. And as i see, some of us have not learned anything from history yet.

[yaebginn]

Skin- 1. It all goes back to how much the person earned. The other person got more money because he made more. Like I said, before. The other person just got the same piece, just the pice resembled a smaller value. I am obviously not a genius, and far from it in this area, so I'll do some more research and get back to you.

2. Ok, but we didnt go there for oil. We went for Saddam, and to turn it into a stable government. Saddan HAD WMDs, there was proof of that, and there are a million ways for him to have hidden them or moved them. Iraq was also a nesting place for terrorism and the murder of many innocents. We now no longer have that problem, or it has been tremendously reduced.

4.Think what you will, its obviosu that your dislike of Bush is enough to make you believe it, so theres no point in trying to convinve you save for practice my debating skills. Its waay too coincidential that as soon as Bush took over Iraq (yes, he did, he was the one who order the military saying he didnt take over Iraq is like saying, 'I didnt kill him, the bullet did' Libya handed over its weapons. Buildup from past experiences may have had an influence, but what Bush did was enough to tip the scales, and therefore, he gets the credit.

6. It IS a local issue. He funded it, and then they have to kepp it going if they wanted. That is how it works.

 

jack- ah, the youth, always trying to rebel. well, if you're going to live on this world, you are going to have to obey. Eventually, you have to obey someone, your parents, your boss. I frankly dont care what you THINK you are going to do, because I assure you, if you go through life with that attitude, you're going to be miserable.

-Then the mother of that terrorist would be wrong. He wasnt murder simply by rules of war.

- But you need authority to be given the right to tell someone to kill another. The only authority your mom has is over you. And that onyl comes with that she gave birth to you. No REAL authority. not over someones life, anyway.

-The people murder in the holocaust were not soldiers, therefore, it was murder, because those are not in agreemnet with the rules. They were innocent civilians. they had no part in the war, yet hitler was evil and killed them anyway. that was murder because it wasnt fair game. they werent in the war, just bystanders targeted by an evil man.

[ET Warrior]

Well your definition makes the US military murderers, because like it or not they DID kill civilians. Maybe not intentionally, but then it makes them guilty of manslaughter.

 

And come on Yaeb, I still want to hear an explanation of HOW the states were supposed to fund the NCLBA, they don't have an infinite amount of money to throw around.

[Alegis]

you can accidentally kill someone. traffic accidents are not on purpose, not murder

 

 

well my opinion on the war, i think USA has the rights to do this all, terrorism attacked THEM. (yes, 9-11) and they should do something back, and they make lots of progress. Iraq was under dictatorship, nothing else worked or happened, this did. Those defending iraq now arent even iraqi civilians, they're terrorists. Iraq is a breeding place for terrorists.

[yaebginn]

Schools have multiple fundraisers and often, for starters. Um, what else, chariteis often give to schools. the FL lotto gives a certain percentage of its profits to school. (zeros a percent j/k)

Theres a few right there. I am not saying taxes arent raised at all and end up hurting small businesses, but frankly, if a few extra bucks in taxes can destroy your business, then you were screwed from the start.

 

EDIT- thanx alegis. Theres an opinion from someone outside the states. and while some individuals of othercountries ahte us, officially, they dont. Many are still our allies, (france) its just the left cities. If you go to NYC, alot of people are going to be liberals, thus, not supporting Bush. Prety much the same in big cities around the world. Paris, London. But they are our allies.