NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically one Liberal mentions the name of a policy of Bush's, then somebody else replies in a paragraph or less - and picks it apart.

I'll start us off.

The 'No Child Left Behind Policy'

Oh, I can't wait to read this tomorrow. Are you guys all going to type out all your responses to what a conservative may say about certain subjects so all you need to do is copy and paste?

You should, easier than typing the same stuff over and over again.

Oh, I can't wait to read this tomorrow. Are you guys all going to type out all your responses to what a conservative may say about certain subjects so all you need to do is copy and paste?

You should, easier than typing the same stuff over and over again.

The title said 'Liberals Only', now please leave.

The 'No Child Left Behind Policy'
By lowering our standards and not leaving anyone behind we actually hurt our education system more than helping it...if a kid doesn't understand the concepts presented to him in 1st grade, he needs to repeat the first grade until he can grasp that concept. Sending him on to second grade is really only going to put him even farther behind...

Good argument - basically not an efficient solution to a problem. It presents itself nice on paper, and appears in a way, vaguely Liberal and effective - but only helps to increase the gap by removing the need for a fundamental base of knowledge.

Anyways - who is George W. Bush to tell America about Education? :D

Leave where? My house?

Problem with that position is that "No child left behind" actually placed standards on a lot of schools that didn't have any. Forcing them to teach if they wanted Federal money.

What you could say, is that what this does is perpetuate the problem. For instance, Poor schools with poor resources are going to have a harder time reaching the standard...hense, they'll get less money thereby not improving their situation.

You guys can copy and paste that for tomorrow.

What's the next issue?

Leave where? My house?

Problem with that position is that "No child left behind" actually placed standards on a lot of schools that didn't have any. Forcing them to teach if they wanted Federal money.

What you could say, is that what this does is perpetuate the problem. For instance, Poor schools with poor resources are going to have a harder time reaching the standard...hense, they'll get less money thereby not improving their situation.?
What money? The Bush League gutted the education budget as soon as possible. You know, so all those liberal teachers couldn't waste any tax money actually teaching kids something.

Basically one Liberal mentions the name of a policy of Bush's, then somebody else replies in a paragraph or less - and picks it apart.

I'll start us off.


Here's a conservative picking apart your thread.

1.) Basically one Basically, one
Use commas to separate introductory words from the sentences they modify.

2.)Liberal liberal
"Liberal" is not a proper noun, and thus does not need capitalization.

3.)policy of Bush's policy of Bush
Both preceding a noun with "of" and succeeding a noun with 's indicate possesion. Only one should be used.

4.), then , and then
Compound sentences are joined by conjunctions.

5.)I'll start us off. I'll start.
Sentences ending in prepositions are grammatically incorrect.

Before presuming to define policy, perhaps you should improve your written communication skills.

Here's a conservative picking apart your thread.

1.) Basically, one
Use commas to separate introductory words from the sentences they modify.

2.) liberal
"Liberal" is not a proper noun, and thus does not need capitalization.

3.) policy of Bush
Both preceding a noun with "of" and succeeding a noun with 's indicate possesion. Only one should be used.

4.) , and then
Compound sentences are joined by conjunctions.

5.) I'll start.
Sentences ending in prepositions are grammatically incorrect.

Before presuming to define policy, perhaps you should improve your written communication skills.

Wow. Impressive. He did an excellent job of avoiding the issue.

What money? The Bush League gutted the education budget as soon as possible. You know, so all those liberal teachers couldn't waste any tax money actually teaching kids something.

Wrong.

http://www.distance-educator.com/dnews/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9276

Wow. Impressive. He did an excellent job of avoiding the issue.


I will address the issue. Had "No Child Left Behind" been in place during your education, you would know that sentences require verbs. (Wow and Impressive are not verbs.) Further, how does your post address the issue at hand? I believe it's clear that an exigency for such a program exists.

By lowering our standards and not leaving anyone behind we actually hurt our education system more than helping it...if a kid doesn't understand the concepts presented to him in 1st grade, he needs to repeat the first grade until he can grasp that concept. Sending him on to second grade is really only going to put him even farther behind...


Isn't this the conservative answer to the question?

NCLB is actually one of Bush's more liberal policies.

I will address the issue. Had "No Child Left Behind" been in place during your education, you would know that sentences require verbs. (Wow and Impressive are not verbs.) Further, how does your post address the issue at hand? I believe it's clear that an exigency for such a program exists.

So. Even though I explicitly stated in the title, 'Liberals Only', you still decided to stick your nose in.

And you still haven't addressed the issue. You questioned my education, and my right to pass judgement on an issue such as this with less that accurate grammar.

I can assure you however, being a graduate of Warwick and The LSE, and currently working for Deutschebank, my education is well above average - and my right to pass judgement on policies such as this are justified by my education.

Now leave Conservative, as it was stated in the title, people such as you are not allowed in this thread. Go and join a Redkneck's Society, I'm sure you would get what you would consider to be much more informed opinions there.

How bout Laura Bush.

"I advise all parents to shut off their TV's and shield their kids from this horror."

Stupid idiot, most 5 year old can use a remote control and it was all over the news. Besides it was huge, people will talk about it.

Sheltering just makes the world all the more scary once you get into it.

So. Even though I explicitly stated in the title, 'Liberals Only', you still decided to stick your nose in.

And you still haven't addressed the issue. You questioned my education, and my right to pass judgement on an issue such as this with less that accurate grammar.

I can assure you however, being a graduate of Warwick and The LSE, and currently working for Deutschebank, my education is well above average - and my right to pass judgement on policies such as this are justified by my education.

Now leave Conservative, as it was stated in the title, people such as you are not allowed in this thread. Go and join a Redkneck's Society, I'm sure you would get what you would consider to be much more informed opinions there.


If you truly want to have a "discussion" without any opposing views, then I will leave you to your fantasies.

However, before I leave, I would like to draw to your attention the fact that censorship and exclusion of those holding opposing views is actually ultra-conservative... oh, the irony!

So. Even though I explicitly stated in the title, 'Liberals Only', you still decided to stick your nose in.

And you still haven't addressed the issue. You questioned my education, and my right to pass judgement on an issue such as this with less that accurate grammar.

I can assure you however, being a graduate of Warwick and The LSE, and currently working for Deutschebank, my education is well above average - and my right to pass judgement on policies such as this are justified by my education.

Now leave Conservative, as it was stated in the title, people such as you are not allowed in this thread. Go and join a Redkneck's Society, I'm sure you would get what you would consider to be much more informed opinions there.



As you demonstrate quite competently with your post, this forum is not much more than a leftist lovefest anyway. Why would you feel the need to go beyond that and turn a thread into even more of a one-sided affair, if not to stroke your own ego?

:rolleyes: Please, Mr. Kierkand, you were not the only one to attend school. You may dispense with the holier-than-thou nitpicking and return to the vaunted art of political discourse. Gee whiz. (Like, omigod, that wasn't a sentence. How much is the ticket from the grammar police gonna cost?) (Argh, now another one from the slang squad. Ouch.)
It seems to me that some "children" deliberately extricate themselves and have no desire to be dragged along. They may regret this later, but at the time, it is most demotivating to be a willing student caught in a class moving ahead at a snail's pace to be sure all the distracted airheads in the last row are not left behind. The concept is, of course, nothing new. Other nations have toyed with it for years and it does not work. From what I have seen of it, the noble idea devolves into simple cramming for standardized tests that measure very little of what is actually learned and retained.

The fact that Conservatives seem to congregate and settle like a bacteria in ridiculous posts about people deserting and abortion.

As of yet, Conservatives offer no counter arguments to the massive problems that they have caused in America - The National Debt is met with rhetoric, The Healthcare system? 'Rhetoric', The War? 'Rhetoric' The Unemployed? 'Rhetoric'.

And so on.

Wrong.

http://www.distance-educator.com/dnews/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9276
Here's some accurate statistics for you without all the righty smoke and mirrors...

The Smallest Increase for Education in 7 Years
Bush FY 2004 Request + $26 million + 0.3 %
Bush FY 2003 Request + $1.4 billion + 2.8 %
2002 + $6.7 billion + 16 %
2001 + $6.6 billion + 19 %
2000 + $2.1 billion + 6 %
1999 + $3.6 billion + 12 %
1998 + $3.3 billion + 12 %
1997 + $3.6 billion + 16 %
Historic Average (1997-2002) + $4.3 billion + 13%

So, yeh, I think 'gutted the education budget' pretty much covers it. As for the NCLB ... when a law doesn't authorize diddly for funding then it's quite easy to appropriate 100% of what's called for in the law.

Lets see the Neocons reply to that....

Wrong.

http://www.distance-educator.com/dnews/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9276
Here is something a little more recent:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/dems.radio.reut/

http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=1637594

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/pierce07012002.html

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news04/032004_news_feria.shtml

http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/0311teachers11.html

So much for appropriations?

Getting into tit for tat wars gets you nowhere. If both sides would quit licking their chops antisipating how to nit pick the other apart, we might actually get somewhere.

At any rate, one of the issues in NCLB is the whole idea of testing. One thing that those outside of education fail to consider is what does testing measure, and what it fail to measure. A kids ability to regurgitate facts does not mean that the education they have gotten is good. It does not mean that they can use those facts. It does not mean that they even understand what those facts mean. All regurgitation of facts on a test means is that either the kid happened to know the answer to the trivial pursuit quesiton at hand... or that they, like many students, have become skilled at test taking.

Thats the tricky question about the testing of NCLB... does it really test what they know, and how they can apply that knowledge?

There are also other issues with testing, but I am tired and need to get to bed... so let me list them and let someone else tackle them:

* NCLB relies on so much testing that teachers are finding that they are forced to "teach to the test", removing academic freedom from lesson planning.

* NCLB states that all kids must meet a standard, but leaves that standard up to each state. When states face a threat of getting their funding cut off, they can toy with the standards. That means that they can lower the standards in order that their students "pass", and they get the federal money.

* NCLB focuses on testing, and leaves little room for other things, such as in class performance. What about the kids who know the material and can apply it, but are not good test takers? Should their inabillity to test well be the main thing determining their schools financial future?

Lets see the Neocons reply to that....
If you get a 50 dollar raise one year, and a 25 dollar raise the next, are they cutting your salary?

Anyways - who is George W. Bush to tell America about Education? :D

Funny...what college did he go to again?

Funny...what college did he go to again?
One of those ones up north...could have been worse, he could have flunked Divinity school...

One of those ones up north...could have been worse, he could have flunked Divinity school...

Yeah...Ivy League....

I think he's pretty damn educated. There's a difference between being a poor public speaker and being an idiot.

Yeah...Ivy League....

I think he's pretty damn educated. There's a difference between being a poor public speaker and being an idiot.
Since Bush is clearly the only one who makes mistatements. It's not like all people do it from time to time but the media just focuses on people they don't like.

interesting...a fellow conservative I dare ask...or are you simply intelligent?

interesting...a fellow conservative I dare ask...or are you simply intelligent?
There's a difference?

Threads like these are worthless, becuase no conservative alive will admit the many wrong doings of their President.
They simply refuse to believe what they hear, if its negative in any way.

Fortunately theres been so much negativity towards Bush, mainly due to his gross incompetence.

The thing I always think, is that even if the majority of the accusations aimed at Bush were untrue, (and most of it is quite accurate, I assure you.)
Out of the 1000 or so accusations about Bush...

What if 90% of them were completely false....?

That would still make 100 wrong deeds done by the man in office.

Why then, are these NeoCons, who love their country, and its constitution, so willing to support a man who is ruining the very foundations of the Country they love?

Threads like these are worthless, becuase no conservative alive will admit the many wrong doings of their President.
They simply refuse to believe what they hear, if its negative in any way.

Fortunately theres been so much negativity towards Bush, mainly due to his gross incompetence.

The thing I always think, is that even if the majority of the accusations aimed at Bush were untrue, (and most of it is quite accurate, I assure you.)
Out of the 1000 or so accusations about Bush...

What if 90% of them were completely false....?

That would still make 100 wrong deeds done by the man in office.

Why then, are these NeoCons, who love their country, and its constitution, so willing to support a man who is ruining the very foundations of the Country they love?
What if someone posted a post that was completely devoid of facts or logic? What if they had 4.3k posts? What if 90% of them were spam? That would mean that they really just wasted everyone's time with their drivel.

What if someone posted a post that was completely devoid of facts or logic? What if they had 4.3k posts? What if 90% of them were spam? That would mean that they really just wasted everyone's time with their drivel.


Your personal attack is not only foolish, but inaccurate.
Everyone on this board that knows me, knows Im no spammer.

The logic is quite sound, and you obviouisly had no other tactics to argue your case than attack me personally.

Something wich you conservatives resort to with a tiresome frequency.

Your personal attack is not only foolish, but inaccurate.
Everyone on this board that knows me, knows Im no spammer.

The logic is quite sound, and you obviouisly had no other tactics to argue your case than attack me personally.

Something wich you conservatives resort to with a tiresome frequency.
You didn't have any points for me to argue. I just felt like raising my post count.

It is funny that a conservative would attack the grammar of liberals while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the language skills, or lack thereof, of Bush. Do I need to remind you that Bush is the pround inventor of the word "misunderestimate"?

Here's an article on the underfunding of NCLB, easily found with the use of Google: http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2004/nr040714.html

The very concept of conservatism rankles my sensibilities. At conservatism's heart is a need to maintain the status quo, to "conserve" things the way they are. As you move even further right in the political spectrum, you even find a longing to return (politically)to the way things once were. This is simply nostalgia without a factual basis. I don't believe anything in the history of man has ever been accomplished by the rigid clinging to of "business as usual". The Constitution was crafted intentionally to be able to adapt to changing times and needs. Conservatives resisted child labor laws, women's rights, civil rights, unions, Social Security, overtime pay, environmental policies, scientific advancement, and so on.
The list never ends, because conservatives simply do not want change. It's the basis of their philosophy. It's not in the best interests of those in power to accept change, as it erodes their perceived power. It's no wonder they have an incredible ability to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to go along with the changing times, no matter what evidence there may be.

There's a difference?

Well put

It is funny that a conservative would attack the grammar of liberals while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the language skills, or lack thereof, of Bush. Do I need to remind you that Bush is the pround inventor of the word "misunderestimate"?

Here's an article on the underfunding of NCLB, easily found with the use of Google: http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2004/nr040714.html

The very concept of conservatism rankles my sensibilities. At conservatism's heart is a need to maintain the status quo, to "conserve" things the way they are. As you move even further right in the political spectrum, you even find a longing to return (politically)to the way things once were. This is simply nostalgia without a factual basis. I don't believe anything in the history of man has ever been accomplished by the rigid clinging to of "business as usual". The Constitution was crafted intentionally to be able to adapt to changing times and needs. Conservatives resisted child labor laws, women's rights, civil rights, unions, Social Security, overtime pay, environmental policies, scientific advancement, and so on.
The list never ends, because conservatives simply do not want change. It's the basis of their philosophy. It's not in the best interests of those in power to accept change, as it erodes their perceived power. It's no wonder they have an incredible ability to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to go along with the changing times, no matter what evidence there may be.
Bush is dyslexic, as are many left-handers. Just because he creates words, doesn't mean his Ivy League education is worth any less than yours. Conservatives support business, the primary source of innovation. Conservatives freed the slaves. Unions, Social Security, and environmental policy have dubious benefits, legislating carbon dioxide does what exactly? Change isn't necessarily a good thing, better to err on the side of caution.

Threads like these are worthless, becuase no conservative alive will admit the many wrong doings of their President.
They simply refuse to believe what they hear, if its negative in any way.

Show me one lib alive besides allan combs that will admit Dubya has done anything right his entire presidency, or even that he was legally elected.

Neither candidate is even talking about Illegal Immigration or Tort reform, and neither are you. You are too busy hating dubya. No one is talking about the seperation of STATE from the church. I have issues with both of these elitist millionaires buying for power in our country. They are not addressing the issues that are extremely important to our culture, society or safety. Where is the candidate who truly represents the issues I believe to be important? There isn't one. The closest one I can find is Dubya and he is a far cry from perfect. I believe a vote for nader is a "waste" of a good vote. I also believe a vote for Bush is essentially just the lesser of 2 evils. I know I will not be voting for John Kerry. I think John Kerry is like Diet Pepsi, George Bush is like CocaCola. I prefer CocaCola