Still Hating America. - Page 57

Shape Shifter · 02-13-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
While every single loss (death AND injury) is tragic, it is importance to look at these numbers in context.

3,100 over nearly 4 years is a remarkably low number, yet the AP, Reuters and the AFP trumpet it as if it represents some bloody rout.

In 2003 alone, over 35,000 people died from the friggin' heat

Perhaps you should declare a War on Global Warming?

Secret_Agent_Man · 02-13-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Again, our party deals with reality and the public will understand that. It knows that the daydream days of dealing with terrorism by shooting rockets at mountains are over, or we're over.

I don't want to hear any more of this BS about Clinton's alleged "failures" in dealing with terrorism and the growing threat from al Qaeda.

The Republicans controlled Congress the whole time, and you never heard them pushing for us to invade Afghanistan, or to do more and more and more. They didn't propose a damn thing, and now all they do is bitch and whine. Cowards.

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man · 02-13-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The opposite being the Dem theme of 2008 - as already being articulated by Obama, et. al. - that if they win the election, we'll be fighting over here.

I'm sure that's exactly what they'll say. Oh yes, running gun battles in the street and suicide bombers in Dubuque.

S_A_M

P.S. You don't really understand our bipartisan spirit, do you?

Hank Chinaski · 02-13-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I don't want to hear any more of this BS about Clinton's alleged "failures" in dealing with terrorism and the growing threat from al Qaeda.

The Republicans controlled Congress the whole time, and you never heard them pushing for us to invade Afghanistan, or to do more and more and more. They didn't propose a damn thing, and now all they do is bitch and whine. Cowards.

S_A_M

we were attacked 3 or 4 times. he was president. What the fuck does congress have to do with that?

Adder · 02-13-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
3,100 over nearly 4 years is a remarkably low number, yet the AP, Reuters and the AFP trumpet it as if it represents some bloody rout.

In a stunningly rare occurence, I actually agree with you.

SlaveNoMore · 02-13-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
Perhaps you should declare a War on Global Warming?

lack of air conditioning in Europe = quagmire.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 02-13-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Annual testing. These tests have to be long enough and compressive enough so in order to teach to the test you have to teach the subject.

2) No more social promotion - kids that don't pass are given the chance to go to summer school and then retry. If they don't succeed they are not held back but put in special schools until if and when they catch up again.

3) Teachers are judged by how much students improve in their class depending on these exams. No teacher can be fired for one or two bad years, and without being tried in a few different teaching environments. Teachers are also compared to the performance of other teachers not to some random standard. The main purpose of the exam is not to fire a lot of teachers. The purpose of the exam is so good teachers are recognized and teachers that aren't doing so well can realize that and learn what other teachers are doing better. You just fire the ones that are way down on the bell curve. Since the stats are public these teachers will probably quit on their own anyway.

4) Teachers' can not be fired because of what they say in class, for 'disrespecting authority", for being unpopular or pissing off parents, or for their methods of teaching, or any other irrelevant reason. They are purely judged on their success (of course all of this is with in reason).

5) The only requirement given to teachers is that they educate, and it is up to them how they do it. It is not fair to tell them what they must do and then tell them how they must do it. They must be free to educate the students in whatever way works best for them.

6) No class should have more than twenty students.

7) Teachers who elect to teach troubled students, or teach in tough schools should get a bonus. Teacher's whose students show more progress than other teacher's students get bonuses.

One through three will be tough to get by the teachers unions. Four and five will be tough to get by parent’s groups and legislators who like to micromanage. Six and Seven will be tough to get by the Republicans (because it will be expensive).

I know I will regret weighing in to the neverending Spanky education harangue.

(1) I think your perspective on testing is just pure mimetic ideological regurgitation uninformed by even a passing familiarity with reality.

(2) You grossly overstate the extent to which social promotion occurs (having fallen out of favor about a decade ago).

(3) While I have nothing against teacher review and terminations for non-performance in principle, I think you once again have a knee-jerk tendency to genuflect to every test you see.

(4) and (5) I also favor Mom and Apple Pie.

(6) Regardless of (1)-(5), above, I'd happily concede all points to get to (6). At the end of the day, the more time for one-on-one and small group teaching, particularly in elementary school, the better the education. That's my simplistic recipe.

(7) Sure, why not. But I'd get there just with (6).

So, show us the money and you win. Now, can we talk about something else?

Sidd Finch · 02-13-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I actually agree with you and Ty that putting our military in harm's way to protect civilians here is the reason we should use the military. That's why we invaded Iraq.

Ah, the Bush Doctrine. We don't use military force to accomplish anything, like defeating an enemy who actually threatens us. We just send our soldiers out to get killed (and maybe yell "bring it on" to encourage that killing).

Sidd Finch · 02-13-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
While every single loss (death AND injury) is tragic, it is importance to look at these numbers in context.

3,100 over nearly 4 years is a remarkably low number, yet the AP, Reuters and the AFP trumpet it as if it represents some bloody rout.

If that was your point, I withdraw my snarky comment. Suggesting that the US is being routed in Iraq is goofy.

I thought you were making more the Spanyesque point -- it's just 3000 soldiers (and $750 BB), it's not like that's a big deal, etc.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-13-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
While every single loss (death AND injury) is tragic, it is importance to look at these numbers in context.

3,100 over nearly 4 years is a remarkably low number, yet the AP, Reuters and the AFP trumpet it as if it represents some bloody rout.

In 2003 alone, over 35,000 people died from the friggin' heat

When you do a cost-benefit analysis, though, 3,100 U.S. troops is a lot to have lost, given that the threat to the U.S. of Iraqi WMD has not been reduced, the level of civil disorder in Iraq is greater, Iraqi is now much more of a base for Al Qaeda, Iran has been strengthened, etc.

Penske_Account · 02-13-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you do a cost-benefit analysis, though, 3,100 U.S. troops is a lot to have lost, given that the threat to the U.S. of Iraqi WMD has not been reduced, the level of civil disorder in Iraq is greater, Iraqi is now much more of a base for Al Qaeda, Iran has been strengthened, etc.

Saddam is dead.