The Bush Ad

[Ultrahumanite]

I didn't have a chance to post when I read about it in the paper, but I see that Dems have their panties in a wad over an ad on George W. Bush's web site that shows a montage of John Kerry's supporters, including part of the Moveon.org ad that featured Adolf Hitler. It also shows Howard Dean and Al Gore, both with a few screws loose. It's all stuff that's already been seen by most people interested in politics.

But now, Democrats are up in arms because the ad shows both Kerry and Hitler. They want it both ways. They defended the right to compare Bush to Hitler with their original ad, but now when the ad is being used to show just how insane they are for doing it, you hear nothing but whining. Furthermore, the ad does not compare Kerry to Hitler, like the Moveon.org ad did with Bush, they were just pointing out that hey, these guys are loony-tics. So Kerry's people are screaming bloody murder, but in an act of sheer, unadulterated ballsiness, the Bush campaign says they're not pulling the ad. Good for you, guys, and two thumbs up.

All of this proves a single point when it comes to liberals: they can dish out the dirt in great heaping shovelfuls, but they can't take it, not even a little.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Actually, no one defended the original ad. It wasn't an official Moveon.org ad, just one of 1,500 submissions to an amateur ad competition to be posted up on a website. Moveon.org never endorsed the ad or supported its comparisons between Hitler and Bush, infact they pulled it from their website and apologized it for slipping through the screening process. So they never defended it.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/1/prweb97559.php

Now, the Bush ad is criticizing Democrats for being angry. Splicing together random footage of instances where liberals have raised their voices doesn't mean jack squat. The right-wing ads keep stressing on optimism, but fail to mention that the way things are being run and if they continue to be in Bush's hands, that there is nothing to be optimistic about. Liberals have every right to angry, although the wonders of editing have made them out to be always angry, all the time, which is ridiculous.

Bush's ad also carries footage of Kerry saying "ass" and bleeping the word out. Does anyone not recall Bush calling a NY Times reporter a "major league asshole"?

Or was that just him being optimistic?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
Good for you, guys, and two thumbs up.



Yeah, way to go! It's always great to see a political party evoking images of genocide. :rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

But I feel that the Republicans are always trying to take the high road to the point where they have no back bone. REpublican's are always labeled as racists, starvers of children, people that are willing to throw old people out on the street to starve to death. It gets really maddening sometimes. the Repubs want to help the truly needy not the greedy. They see the problem with the innercities as related to welfare dependency and see the welfare issue as a continuation of slavery.

I saw a black man on TV last night who has written a book "Unfounded Loyalty" about how it was actually the Democratic Party who has oppressed the Blacks throughout most of black history and how the Republican party was always ready to help the blacks. (Abe Lincoln and even the NAACP).It will be interesting if his book gets any airtime- doubtful.

Anyway, the label of racist is one that has really damged the Repub party over the years and it has successfully managed to sideline any meaningful discussion about the damage that perpetual welfare has done to the black community (single parents, drug abuse etc) Idle hands are the devil's workshop or something like that. Thankfully there has now been some welfare reform but a lot of damage has been done.

Repubs need to start fighting backand sticking up for the things they belive in which are good things. They are so damn passive so much of the time.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But I feel that the Republicans are always trying to take the high road to the point where they have no back bone....


...Repubs need to start fighting backand sticking up for the things they belive in which are good things. They are so damn passive so much of the time.


Lynn, that is the funniest, and most wrong, thing I may have ever read.

Not saying the Dems aren't guilty as well, but Rep.'s taking the high road?

HAHAHAHHA.

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I saw a black man on TV last night who has written a book "Unfounded Loyalty" about how it was actually the Democratic Party who has oppressed the Blacks throughout most of black history and how the Republican party was always ready to help the blacks. (Abe Lincoln and even the NAACP).It will be interesting if his book gets any airtime- doubtful.

You know, Lynn, most black families have core conservative values, but vote Democratic out of a sense of loyalty to the party. The first Dem to attract black voters in great numbers was FDR -- prior to that, Republicans almost always got 'the black vote'. But the Repubs did back then what the Democrats are doing now -- they took the 'black vote' for granted and lost touch with the demographic. Black loyalty to Democratic Party structures has been misinterpreted as inertia - a racist conclusion that implies laziness of thought and action. Assuming that we'll "stay" simply because we have nowhere else to "go," national Democrats refuse to understand that the growing black conservative movement comes from deep anger and heartfelt disappointment, not with George Bush and the 'White Man's Party', but with them.
Now the pendulum is swinging the other way... you'd be surprised how many black conservatives there are. I thought I'd be an anomoly when I got to college, but I met lots of Republican and Libertarian blacks, and the number seems to keep growing every year (despite what the evening news tells you). "It'll never happen," they say, "It's unthinkable." Which is just an indication of how out-of-touch the Dems are with their voting base. The Democrats aren't going to see the light until the train has run them over.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Lynn, that is the funniest, and most wrong, thing I may have ever read.

Not saying the Dems aren't guilty as well, but Rep.'s taking the high road?

HAHAHAHHA.

Greb- just watch the debate shows and you will see what I mean. The Dems are always saying the oworst insults and interrupt every 5 minutes and the Repubs always back down and try to be nice. it has improved without Begala and Carville around but the only thing close to a Carville that the Repubs have is Anne Coulter. Other wise we have such pit bulls as Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, jC watts ZZZZZZZZZZ

[Lynn7]

Ultrahumanite- I know what you mean- I have one black friend in particular who is a devout Christain but is staunchly Democratic- she sees the Repub party as oppressors of blacks. Most of the black families in the church I go to are Conservatives and vote Republican.
I used to vote all Democrat. I used to see the Republican party as a group of fat cat whites who didn't care about the poor people or the blacks. But there has been a change in recent years. The Republican party has been transforming over the years bringing more of a Christain influence rather than a wealth influence.and theDemocrats have also been transforming. They have begun to thirst for power at any cost giving up the values they say they hold dear.

I see the welfare system as enslavement of blacks. No one should be content to live on little money and told they have no options. The inner cities should be demanding and recieving great education- Bush's No child Left Behind wanted to enpower parents to remove their children form poor performing schools and let the market forces take effect. if kids started leaving the shcools the principals would be forced to become more efficient at teaching. The Dems resisited his plan becasue of teacher unions. It's so damn discouraging. These kids should be encouraged to view eduation as a liberating equalizing force. The sky's the limit- instead a lot of the Dem Leaders choose to emphasize despair and low expectations. A lot of the kids deliberately don't study becasue they don't want to be percieved as "Uncle Toms" Its the tone that some of the Dem black leaders have set to advance themselves politically as well as financially (esp Jesse jackson and Al Sharpton) Now there is Perryman's book and there are a few other outspoken conservative blacks who are trying to be heard but the media only presents the liberal voices of the blacks (exceopt Fox News)

Also if i was a black leader (i am not black*G*) I would encourage the community to pull togehter- support black businesses and for black business owners to reach back inot the community to mentor kids. I would encourage the kids to see eduaction as their obligation to the betterment of the black community and then they would be a power to behold. The Jewish people do this and that is why they are always so successful. I think I heard they only make up about 2% of the population but their success is very impressive and a good pattern to emulate.

[loner]

perfect for the discussion.....


http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/store/racists_for_the_left.jpg

[The Postmaster General]

1. The lowered taxes don't have an effect on most black businesses. In fact, stricter agricultural regulations have harshly effected local "upstarts"

2. Whereas privatized school remove children from their neighborhoods and breakdown infrastructure.

3. People need help. There is no getting around that. It sounds like The Right thinks that people who need help are inferior.

4. Actually 61/80%

5. "Yess!!" Why would you be enthused about that? See #2.

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I see the welfare system as enslavement of blacks. No one should be content to live on little money and told they have no options.

Yeah, but that's how the Democrats keep themselves a convenient power base. They pretty much have to keep us poor and struggling -- they create the situation and then exploit it for their own benefit. Over the last 50-odd years, the Democrats have socially engineered American blacks to the point that many are simply unable to exist without some form of government assistance -- annd that's just the way the Democrats like it. Because as long as we need them in office, they know that they can always count on some votes. You're right on target with your post, Lynn -- and so is that T-shirt.

Look at Bubbastrangelove's post above: "People need help. There is no getting around that. It sounds like The Right thinks that people who need help are inferior," he says. But the bigoted assumption inherent in that statement is that we need help -- or want it. People on the left seem to view blacks as children, unable or too lazy to stand up for their own rights, and the smug, condescending attitude that it breeds is that Liberals need to 'rig' the game so that we less capable, less intelligent and less able blacks can keep up with the oh-so-superior whites.

"It sounds like The Right thinks that people who need help are inferior."

No, Bubba -- the Right seems to think that we don't need help at all. The Left just treats us like children.

It's insulting -- and the worst part of it is, most Liberals don't even understand WHY it's insulting. Indeed, the words of Frederick Douglass are more stingingly true today than they were during the time of the abolitionists:

What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten to the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone,--don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner-table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone,--don't disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone, - your interference is doing him a positive injury. . . . Let him fall if he cannot stand alone!

Look at the structure of the government under Clinton, as opposed to Bush. How many black officials did Clinton appoint to positions of power? How many did Bush? I judge a person by what he does, not by what he says. Also, look at how rabidly the Democrats blocked every minority appointee to a federal court that Bush presented -- because it would completely destroy the illusion that Dems have our best intrests at heart if people started to notice that Republicans were the only ones who actually ignore our color.

Bush's appointments sends one clear message to me: "I don't care what color you are. I only care about your qualifications." Which is what they all say, but how many actually back up those pretty words with action? Well, Bush did.

Part of the reason a lot of blacks are waking up is because the Democrats are starting to not need us anymore. With the steady flow of illegal immigrants into the country, there's a whole new sector of people to keep poor and dependent on the government in exchange for votes -- why else, you must ask yourself, would the Dems attempt to make it legal for illegal immigrants to vote?

"Whereas privatized school remove children from their neighborhoods and breakdown infrastructure."

Isn't it funny how Liberals always try to keep blacks from sending their kids to private school? Did you ever wonder about that? I think it has something to do with Liberals being afraid of blacks getting an education, as opposed to an indoctrination. Notice, if you will, that the strongest opponets to school choice programs are all people who send their own children to private schools, not to public schools. Interesting, no?

Dependency is the name of the game... but we're starting to wake up.

[Ultrahumanite]

Oh, and you can find the ad in question here:
http://www.georgewbush.com/

[Thrizzle]

LOL. Am i taking crazy pills? The Replican party always taking the high road? Do i really need to make an arguement?

LA TIGRA? BLUE STEEL? FERRARI? ITS ALL ONE LOOK PEOPLE!!!


Anyway, i really can't believe the arguement that liberals oppress black people, when most black people are in fact liberal themselves. The republican party, whenever they get the chance, redistrict voting (like in Texas) to count votes of black counties less, and in the case of Florida, throw away those votes all together. Champions of the black community indeed.....you just cant vote.

And don't mistake the republican party of 150 years ago with the one now. Lincoln is actually considered liberal. Today the RP is about corporate interests, because thats where their funding is, their base is the rich, powerful.....and yes, white.

[The Postmaster General]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
Look at Bubbastrangelove's post above: "People need help. There is no getting around that. It sounds like The Right thinks that people who need help are inferior," he says. But the bigoted assumption inherent in that statement is that we need help -- or want it.

So.... you're throwing your support out for the T-shirt?


I can only relate things as they pertain to me. Personally, I would want help, and have needed help. I've gotten that help for many things: Pell Grants, scholarships, and other forms of financial aid.

It's not bigoted at all, my stance. Race plays no factor, as I really don't care who gets government handouts. I like people getting free shit, even if it is at my expense. I make money, and I like to spend money. Saving it is important, but you don't need to save more than the next person needs. Give people what they want because when you're gone, they're gone to you, and no one will ever remember the money.

However, I think my spending habits hardly reflect my social views. That pertains to my people too. Of course there are a bunch of dumbass patronizing liberals who do think they are Elliot, and the black people are ET and they are saving them or some shit. Yeah, I agree. That's crazy! Especially when it is described like I just described it.

You agree with me on this one from what I can tell Ultra --- The current state of our aid systems that is the bigoted one here. It BLINDLY gives out the money, not based on potential, but based on what is detrimental.

Student loans, financial aid and the like all WORKS because it is based on merit. That is what I'm getting at in the reparation thread when I say that I would be for them if each black person getting them could pass a black history quiz. That's not the case though. If reparations were given out, they'd be given out in the most racist way imaginable -- based on the color of your skin and where your family is from, not based on what you know and where you plan on taking what you know.

Don't make it personal, Ultrahumanite. The only difference between the left and right is that I want to blow our money, and you want to put it in a pickle jar and hide it in the basement. Neither of us our sides are inherently racist, but the corruption that has been put forth to represent us does run thick with misplaced intentions.

Please bare in mind, I was responding to a T-Shirt. Much like when I see a hot chick on a T-shirt along with the words "Forget the mountains, just give me the Busch." I say "Don't mind if I do!"

Whenever either side criticizes the other based on T-shirt mentality, it's going to create polar differences that have nothing to do with the real issues. That T-shirt was a pretty extremist view, and no matter how you look at it -- it can be as easily construed as sounding like the right is the one that's thinking people are inferior.

One sentence responding to a T-shirt shouldn't be used to form an arguement against liberals is all I'm saying. This is why I was specific in noting that my response was toward the T-shirt, because I honestly didn't feel it was an accurate representation of the true intent of conservative ideals.





Isn't it funny how Liberals always try to keep blacks from sending their kids to private school?


Actually, this liberal would for the privatization of inner city, or poor schools, if it meant the kids getting a better education. I am not against blacks going to private schools, I am for the revitalization and reform in the current standing neighborhood schools.

I was bused as a kid, and always thought is sucked having to go to school with different kids than lived in my neighborhood.

Again, it's just me wanting for others what I want for myself. I wouldn't want to see blacks, whites, whatever being shuffled around like that. It's not being against education, it's being for the same thing you want too - equal education

The problem with the No Child Left Behind deal is that currently it is in the process of privatizing failing schools, but it's going to be by allowing the schools to deteriorate first. These schools, as they continue to lose Federal MOnies will keep getting worse, and worse -- screwing up a bunch of kids in the process -- until they more or less "go out of business." That's no good - and bad for the neighborhood.

[Ultrahumanite]

Oh, don't mistake me, Bubba... I don't think you're racist, and I didn't say that. I said there was an inherent bigotry in your statement, and there is. But you seem to be one of the rarest of rare things, a liberal who thinks that his brain is there for something besides downloading propaganda from DNC headquarters, which puts you out of the 75% of liberal stooges I converse with in class and over coffee on a nearly daily basis.

But, I mean, look at the post above yours. He cannot believe that blacks would EVER leave the Democratic party... and you know, the Republicans thought the same thing, until the 30's, when they got a really rude awakening.

What's worse is, he can't believe that eroding the pride and cohesiveness of the black race -- which is what the Democrats have done in th last half-century -- is oppresive, or I guess I should say that he thinks we don't see it as oppressive.

Trust me. We do.

Al Sharpton, a man I usually despise, tapped into black disenfranchisement with the Democrats to further his own goals... he would never have stood a national chance (because the Democrats will never pick a black person for their nominee -- and yes, I believe that the Republicans would before the Democrats do... my vote goes for Alan Keyes, although he'll never run...

But Democrats like Thrizzle don't get it.. they think that we'll always be there, no matter how thye ignore us, and condescend to us, and treat us like children...

But I got no beef with you Bubba... I wasn't trying to make this a personal issue...

[loner]

Well I figured that T-shirt kinda fit the discussion that was going on with this topic.....so it was just a humorous way on my part to show that the left's social programs (while many well intentioned) only do more harm to the black community than good. And as Ultrahumanite already mentioned, it is incredible how most liberals just can't see that. If one was to really look at the history of the black American......one can only be impressed. To go from slavery to being doctors and lawyers and teachers and politicians in less than a hundred years is absolutely remarkable. And during these 100 years black Americans did this during highly imhumane treatment (segragated South and such) and without any families on welfare. So why one would think that the black community needs help from social programs in today's America is beyond me.



Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The only difference between the left and right is that I want to blow our money, and you want to put it in a pickle jar and hide it in the basement. Neither of us our sides are inherently racist, but the corruption that has been put forth to represent us does run thick with misplaced intentions.

Not necessarily.....the left basically favors the more spreading of a person's wealth; while the right believes that the money a person makes should be his or hers alone and no one elses. I have a serious problem with money I earn being taken outta my check to go to other people. I'm all for helping out my fellow man.....but social programs through the government only breed laziness and dependency.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by loner
....but social programs through the government only breed laziness and dependency.



Yeah, but that would be like me saying tax breaks through the government only breeds corruption.

It's too harsh to be the truth.

[Thrizzle]

I fail to see inherent racism in an issue that doesn't involve race. Liberals believe in helping all those who are disadvantaged..... not survival of the fittest.

But i honestly would like to hear what Bush and Bush Sr. have done to help African Americans.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Greb- just watch the debate shows and you will see what I mean. The Dems are always saying the oworst insults and interrupt every 5 minutes and the Repubs always back down and try to be nice. it has improved without Begala and Carville around but the only thing close to a Carville that the Repubs have is Anne Coulter. Other wise we have such pit bulls as Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, jC watts ZZZZZZZZZZ

I suppose you've never heard of Sean Hannity? That guy is offle. ;)

[SLAW]

Originally posted by loner
Not necessarily.....the left basically favors the more spreading of a person's wealth; while the right believes that the money a person makes should be his or hers alone and no one elses. I have a serious problem with money I earn being taken outta my check to go to other people. I'm all for helping out my fellow man.....but social programs through the government only breed laziness and dependency.

yeah, I like poverty too. :p

[loner]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I fail to see inherent racism in an issue that doesn't involve race. Liberals believe in helping all those who are disadvantaged..... not survival of the fittest.

But i honestly would like to hear what Bush and Bush Sr. have done to help African Americans.


But there is a big difference between the disadvantaged and the irresponsible. But many people seem to confuse the two. And the social programs in this country usually end up trying to help the irresponsible. And it's not like the right is necessarily proposing survival of the fittest. It just supports lower taxes so people can have more money from the fruits of their labor.........whether a person makes 7 dollars and hour or 700.

Not sure what kinda help you think black Americans need that whites or others don't. But as for Dubya.....he appointed more blacks to his cabinet than any other president did. But that's not help. I'm sure they worked hard and were most deserving and qualified for those jobs. Getting help implies one cannot do it on their own.

[loner]

Originally posted by SLAW
yeah, I like poverty too. :p


I don't. But if I did, I'd definitely vote to the left and for even more governmental social programs. Cuz they've done wonders in our big cities in the last 50 years.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I fail to see inherent racism in an issue that doesn't involve race. Liberals believe in helping all those who are disadvantaged..... not survival of the fittest.

But i honestly would like to hear what Bush and Bush Sr. have done to help African Americans.

Bush has tried to revolutionalize the educational system by implementing school choice but becasue of the teacher unions theprogram was watered down- they said that if the money left teh public scjhools the schools would become poor and the kids would suffer- Wrong!! The schools would become accountable and they would improve through competitiona nd everyone would win. A big city near where i live implemented school choice in the city many years ago. One day I was shocked to hear a good friend of mine hoping to get her kid into a school in a really bad neighborhood- why? Becasue of school choice this school had to become competitive to attract students and had become one of the city's finest schools. Competition works-money talks. Bush understands this.

Also Bush appointed Rod Paige (an African American) to his cabinet for education (Secretary of Education). He is in the highest education position in the entire country. Bush also appointed Colin Powell to represent our country to other countries and Condi Rice as his closest and most trusted advisor to help administrate our National Security- that is putting your money where your mouth is!


Also, it is not survival of the fittest that Repubs believe in- they beleive that African Americans have the same brains that whites do and when given the proper motivation as students they will soar. Too many inner city kids are being warehoused and passed along to the next grade whether they can read or write or not. Bush does not want any kids to get passed along to the next grade until they can do the work- if there is a problem identify it and fix it- don't give up on the kids. When the bar is raised the kids will perform. It is an optimistic philosophy.

Bill Cosby has been speaking out once again for the Black Community to start setting the bar higher. I'll post it if I can come across it again.

I found it and I will start a new thread with it to move this discussion there since this one is on the Bush Ad.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SLAW
I suppose you've never heard of Sean Hannity? That guy is offle. ;)

The conservative talk show hosts are pitt bulls but the conservative politicians are wimpy. They always try to take the high road (with a few exceptions). The liberal politicians and the liberal talk show hosts are all pitt bulls- with the exception of Alan Colmes- he is always polite.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
Isn't it funny how Liberals always try to keep blacks from sending their kids to private school? Did you ever wonder about that? I think it has something to do with Liberals being afraid of blacks getting an education, as opposed to an indoctrination. Notice, if you will, that the strongest opponets to school choice programs are all people who send their own children to private schools, not to public schools. Interesting, no?


I obviously can't speak for other liberals, but I know that my personal reason for opposing the whole school of choice thing has nothing to do with race. If people of any race, white, black, latino, etc., want to send their kids to private schools, more power to them, I have no problem with that, that's their decision. And I'm not arguing with the fact that it might be better for those kids, cause they'd get a better education, which is something that children of all races are lacking. I just don't think it's a valid way to reform the public school system. I guess I just don't understand how public schools can get better if they get money taken away from them and given to private schools. Public schools get a certain amount of money for each student. If some students start going to private schools, public schools lose the money. While the competition is there, the school can't have the resources it needs to compete, because it can't afford them. As I already said, if you wanna send your kids to a private school, that's cool, and I'm not gonna tell you not to, cause it would improve their education, and probably be better for them in the long run, but just don't talk about how it will improve public schools, cause it won't.

And just for the record, I don't fit your profile of people who oppose school of choice. I go to a public school. Not only that, I go to one of the poorer schools in my area (Most of the schools in the Livonia school district are full of rich white assholes, as opposed to Clarenceville school district, the small one within the city of Livonia I go to, which is more for people who can't afford to live in the areas of the other schools). I personally, wouldn't want to see schools of choice implemented, because my school is poor enough as it is, and the last thing we need is for money to be taken away.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
I just don't think it's a valid way to reform the public school system. I guess I just don't understand how public schools can get better if they get money taken away from them and given to private schools. Public schools get a certain amount of money for each student. If some students start going to private schools, public schools lose the money. While the competition is there, the school can't have the resources it needs to compete, because it can't afford them. As I already said, if you wanna send your kids to a private school, that's cool, and I'm not gonna tell you not to, cause it would improve their education, and probably be better for them in the long run, but just don't talk about how it will improve public schools, cause it won't.



The way it would be reformed is that they would be forced to make changes to compete so they would NOT lose students. They would get rid of the crappy teachers and make sure that they kept the teachers who really care. They would enforce discipline for a safer teaching and learning environment. Right now if kids act up they are sent to the principal's office and promptly sent back to the class. The schools are impotent and apathetic. Throwing money at the schools has little to do with good education. What about the one room school houses that used to teach all grades at the same time. Home schooling is producing some of the best educated kids. A little competition will always do the trick- it forces people to do better.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The way it would be reformed is that they would be forced to make changes to compete so they would NOT lose students. They would get rid of the crappy teachers and make sure that they kept the teachers who really care. They would enforce discipline for a safer teaching and learning environment. Right now if kids act up they are sent to the principal's office and promptly sent back to the class. The schools are impotent and apathetic. Throwing money at the schools has little to do with good education. What about the one room school houses that used to teach all grades at the same time. Home schooling is producing some of the best educated kids. A little competition will always do the trick- it forces people to do better.

But the problem with many schools (like mine for example) is that they don't have the resources to become any better. If students are lost, they lose money, so they can't afford better teachers or resources. The incentive's there, but they can't do anything.

And home schooling may be better for education, but it can also hurt people's social skills.

[SLAW]

Originally posted by SLAW
I suppose you've never heard of Sean Hannity? That guy is offle. ;)

Why the hell do you spell AWFUL like that?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
But the problem with many schools (like mine for example) is that they don't have the resources to become any better. If students are lost, they lose money, so they can't afford better teachers or resources. The incentive's there, but they can't do anything.

And home schooling may be better for education, but it can also hurt people's social skills.

I've taken many courses where the teacher doesn't even use books but uses their own content. I know in Maryland many of the shcools require the students to bring in their own paper and pencils etc and these were well funded schools. Hundreds of years ago the people were so well educated and there was little money to buy supplies.

I'm not sure where all the money is going but it certainly isn't improving the education and its been going on for years. Bush wanted to try something new but the teacher's unions want to keep the status quo. It's all about maintaining the power of the unions and not the well being of the students. What about tenure? A teacher can be a total waste but can not be fired unless they molest someone. One kid i know got a C in Spanish (his first C ) because the teacher gave tests with content that had never been taught in class or in the book they were using. The teacher just retired but his pupils from 30 years ago (the parents of shome ofhhis current students) said the guy sucked back when they had him. Why was he still there? Tenure. That is demotivating to students.

Hoemschooling is pretty wild these days. It's a whole subculture with hundreds of families that pool resources to hire specialized teachers and go on field trips together. The kids have flexible schedules that allow them to do a lot of really neat things. One homechooled kid I know took his advanced courses at a local community college while he was still in 11th grade. Another took Tae KwonDo for phys ed and ended up earning his balck belt and is teaching others and earning his second degree belt- he is 18 or 19 years old. Homeschooling is a great alternative for kids who are having a hard time with bullies and it is great for kids who can't learn at school becasue of a disruptive environment. It's a great option to have available for parents.

For those who don't want to home school, vouchers and school choice is great.