Teachers and Education

[Johnny Tremain]

Sounds eerily similar to....uh...damn....its on the tip of my tongue....ugh!!!....sh*t!!!!...I lost it.....

Lets see now....doesn't the left regularly equate Nazism to conservatism? Yet I don't see those on the left like my good bud the pot smoking moderator, ever condemn such idioticy. I guess its that old thing about who's ox is getting gored....

The Grand Ruse--to fool everyone.
It's only when a "Mr. Smarty-Pants" comes long and the Piper gets a following. Watch the interviews on TV. His supporters are the stupidest people among us. On this--there can be NO doubt.

 

[Centrehalf]

Sounds eerily similar to....uh...damn....its on the tip of my tongue....ugh!!!....sh*t!!!!...I lost it.....

Lets see now....doesn't the left regularly equate Nazism to conservatism? Yet I don't see those on the left like my good bud the pot smoking moderator, ever condemn such idioticy. I guess its that old thing about who's ox is getting gored....

This coming from the guy who argued that America was antagonizing Germany shortly before WW2. The opinions you spew forth are erratic, nonsensical and disgusting. You've run into opinions you don't agree with and now you want to invoke Godwin's Law? Pathetic.

 

[PLC1]

FYI--old and long known historical fact--HITLER was anti-everything you mentioned--but the ones who vaulted him to power--well that is another ball of wax. Sound familiar? http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-roehm.htm

Strong military is for expansionism, usually. Or defense.

The Soviets were the inventors--more or less, on a large scale anyway--of leftism.
Collectivism might be a better description.

It is ALL about ONE person--in almost all insane governments.
One might say--a desire to avoid all reconciliation and debate ("democracy") by giving one person total control.
Totalitarianism.
Once called--monarchy.

Yes, of course, in an "insane government", i.e., a dictatorship, it's all about one person. That's why we have a balance of powers in the Constitution, to prevent one person from getting enough power to make for a dictatorship.

And, sure, once it was called a monarchy, with the king the absolute ruler of the kingdom. The great historic document that began to turn that idea around was the Magna Carta.

Now, as for the Soviets:

They banned homosexuality with a punishment of GULag, execution, or KGB-run mental institution where they would do all kinds of horrible experiments on you.
Abortion was banned with similar punishment as above.
They promoted a nuclear family and encouraged women to have many children.
They spent huge money on the military.
They got into expensive military adventures abroad, including in Afghanistan.
And they kept the borders closed. No immigration, period, legal or illegal.

That doesn't sound like modern liberalism to me.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Yes, of course, in an "insane government", i.e., a dictatorship, it's all about one person. That's why we have a balance of powers in the Constitution, to prevent one person from getting enough power to make for a dictatorship.

And, sure, once it was called a monarchy, with the king the absolute ruler of the kingdom. The great historic document that began to turn that idea around was the Magna Carta.

Now, as for the Soviets:

They banned homosexuality with a punishment of GULag, execution, or KGB-run mental institution where they would do all kinds of horrible experiments on you.
Abortion was banned with similar punishment as above.
They promoted a nuclear family and encouraged women to have many children.
They spent huge money on the military.
They got into expensive military adventures abroad, including in Afghanistan.
And they kept the borders closed. No immigration, period, legal or illegal.

That doesn't sound like modern liberalism to me.

Now, as for the Soviets:
Abortion was banned with similar punishment as above.
They promoted a nuclear family and encouraged women to have many children.
The above two made sense--the losses from the GPW were immense.

They spent huge money on the military.
After having half their country burned to the ground--and ~30-50,000,000 dead--defense was paramount. If you were a Russian boy of 18 years of age in 1941--90% did not survive to 1946.

They got into expensive military adventures abroad, including in Afghanistan.
Not many.
Cuba was defensive--to counter US medium range nuke missiles placed in Turkey in April, 1962. Afghanistan is tied to troubles in Chechnya--and the muslims in general.

And they kept the borders closed. No immigration, period, legal or illegal.
They invented xenophobia! For some halfway logical reasons.
They trusted--no one.

That doesn't sound like modern liberalism to me.
You are thinking of 'liberalism' under the big umbrella democrats use to describe it.
I maintain it is quite different in action. It is completely intolerant.

Just sayin'

 

[Gipper]

This coming from the guy who argued that America was antagonizing Germany shortly before WW2. The opinions you spew forth are erratic, nonsensical and disgusting. You've run into opinions you don't agree with and now you want to invoke Godwin's Law? Pathetic.

You really have a problem. Your continued nonsensical posts filled with animosity common to little school girls, is most distressing.

I have repeatedly backed my opinion with those of experts and you have backed yours with NOTHING. FDR antagonized Germany as well as Japan. You might read a book once and awhile. Here is a good one for you.
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/B0078Y0B8C/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350416964&sr=1-1&keywords=day of deceit

But should that prove too taxing, maybe a little picture show is more your style.

This too is rather....long...but it proves me right and you wrong AGAIN. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

I hope you will try to educate yourself because I love teaching history. Its a gift given to me by the man upstairs. Enjoy.

 

[steveox]

Here is the answer to fix that - some of it anyway

Now, West said children do better when brought up by their biological parents in intact families. Now thats true,, But what if the parents arent disaplining them like poor kids who live in ghetto public housing joining gangs and commiting crimes,, Like mugging ,raping ,,robbing people and stealing from the store? Parents just dont care what their children do cause theyre hooked on booze and taking drugs. When you have a baby youre supposed to raise it properly teach it from right and wrong. Not because welfare gives you a bonus in your check and extra food stamps. Parenting is a tough job,,If you cant handle that job properly then ther Government has to raise it for you ,,Like putting children in an orphanage and a proper parents will adopt them give them a better life. Just like if you cant do your job at work and be productive then the boss has to fire you.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I think the great problem here is the "housing projects"--concentration camps, really, which the liberals have championed and placed all over our cities and are the base-hub for criminal behavior to be equally spread all over cities. Prior to that, people of low income were dispersed around cities. Now, the left places them into good, ~crime-free neighborhoods--so that they may be brought down to the level of chaos as well, and they buy up apt. houses and turn them into seething hell-holes full of bugs, plumbing problems and 15 people living in an apt. 100% are on welfare. No one works--the young males never, ever have a father around and they are "barracks" for criminals. The rules of engagement USED to be--if you could make more money--you could MOVE your family to a better neighborhood and maybe your kids won't be stabbed. The left is systematically changing this.

They think--just as they do on TV programs and commercials--"if the young poor children just SEE all the good things they might get one day--they will all fall into correct behavior."

It is the root of the screaming stupidity and laws written by those liberals--who happened to L-O-V-E all the "ethnic" types--yet always seem to send THEIR children to Sidwell-Friends (which is a religious school--BTW) and other PRIVATE schools--and live in gated communities with armed guards at the entrances and patrolling. They simply don't see why anyone is complaining.

People like Allen West could come up with some ideas that were not rooted in some liberal college sorority confab attended by little rich girls raised in The Hamptons.

 

[steveox]

The way i see it,,, Poor girls are getting pregnaut cause of the welfare system. They dont have any desire to love that child. All they see out of it is more welfare money and more food stamps. Look at the average married folks who have jobs.. When they get a child they dont get a raise,,They have to go though their bosses and get the raise. But welfare folks get it automaticly. And then poor mothers just buy drugs n booze and let thekir kids roam on the streets deal dealing and comming crimes. And when kids get arrested go though court system their moms dont care,,she tells her kid just go to prison and youll be out. Thats why the government should get involved. Each girl who recieves welfare go though a test. Are your kids in school getting above B average grade? Are they disaplined and geting involved with the family and after school activities? And finaly are they advoiding trouble with the police? If they answer no to any two of these questions you lose the child or children to foster care.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The way i see it,,, Poor girls are getting pregnaut cause of the welfare system. They dont have any desire to love that child. All they see out of it is more welfare money and more food stamps. Look at the average married folks who have jobs.. When they get a child they dont get a raise,,They have to go though their bosses and get the raise. But welfare folks get it automaticly. And then poor mothers just buy drugs n booze and let thekir kids roam on the streets deal dealing and comming crimes. And when kids get arrested go though court system their moms dont care,,she tells her kid just go to prison and youll be out. Thats why the government should get involved. Each girl who recieves welfare go though a test. Are your kids in school getting above B average grade? Are they disaplined and geting involved with the family and after school activities? And finaly are they advoiding trouble with the police? If they answer no to any two of these questions you lose the child or children to foster care.

Well said. I agree.

There needs to be tests met for welfare aside from a mirror under the nose to see if they are breathing.
Ghetto girls have babies because they are incredibly stupid and as a way out of the hell-hole they were raised in and are completely incapable, intellectually, of seeing this--EVER. The cycle repeats every 13-16 years.
Ghetto boys find a "baby-mama" who gets free rent and move in as the office for their criminal empire. More ghetto kids arrive. More Food Stamps.

If you--or your children--are not capable of living in decent, orderly society--they should NOT BE ALLOWED to reside in certain areas and cities.

Draconian--yes. But--wanton street murders and mayhem are Draconian as well.
Sequestered until they EARN their way out.

 

[Cruella]

Isn't there a time limit on welfare?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Isn't there a time limit on welfare?

You know--there was supposed to be a five-year limit on it--but it seems to have been swept under the rug.

 

[Cruella]

You know--there was supposed to be a five-year limit on it--but it seems to have been swept under the rug.

I believe your right. A five year lifetime limit.

I think people on it should be drug tested, and enrolled in some type of education program and work for their community or lose their benefits. This money should not be given to them freely without strings.

There is a lot of fraud in welfare and too many people game the system.

 

[steveox]

Theres no limit on welfare cause Dems dont want limits. If they put limits them they lose their re-election vote. You know they need the black vote. Just like Mayors will never condem Black preachers on their take against Chick-Fil-A cause they need the black votes.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I believe your right. A five year lifetime limit.

I think people on it should be drug tested--for the sake of the children always caught in this nightmare--, and enrolled in some type of education program and work for their community or lose their benefits. This money should not be given to them freely without strings.

There is a lot of fraud in welfare and too many people game the system.

This may clarify some--

http://web.ku.edu/~rlevy/Public_Benefit_Law/reform_papers/5-YearCap.PDF

 

[PLC1]

About those welfare time limits:

• States have developed widely varying approaches to time limits. States have broad flexibility in designing time-limit policies, in large part because the federal time limit does not apply to state-funded benefits. Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. However, nearly half the national welfare caseload is in states that either have no time limit (2 states) or a time limit that reduces or modifies benefits when the limit is reached (8 states and the District of Columbia).

All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems.

Seems they vary by state.

Read the rest here