PDA

View Full Version : i told you so.....



GRUMPY
06-17-2011, 04:46 PM
i told you that this affirmative action president would be a hard left disaster.....some said no, wait, circumstance will mitigate the damage....right....now we must all look in the mirror and conduct "a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves...." own our apathy, complacency, arrogance and adolescence.....how has this nation elected a man who generally holds it in disdain, it's history, constitution, military, values and traditions.....how have we serially elected leaders that have bought and sold our votes and bankrupted our future and the future of those who will follow us....now what do we do....

first we own up to our lack of fidelity....
second we diagnose the problem....
third we formulate a plan, goals and objectives....
fourth we engage....

Mister D
06-17-2011, 07:57 PM
Step 1 will be the most difficult.

Captain Obvious
06-17-2011, 09:16 PM
It goes to show how easily influenced the voting populace in general is.

They vote based on packaging and labeling, not content.

Mister D
06-17-2011, 09:38 PM
Yeah, people get too carried away with the brand name. I asked people a few days ago if they were committed as they appear to be considering all the partisan online and only two responded in the affirmative. What happens next? Same BS. They go right back to it.

Captain Obvious
06-17-2011, 09:45 PM
Yeah, people get too carried away with the brand name. I asked people a few days ago if they were committed as they appear to be considering all the partisan online and only two responded in the affirmative. What happens next? Same BS. They go right back to it.


It will be (and has been) interesting to see BO's tactics now that he's in campaign mode. He avoided hot button issues like the plague a few months earlier and he's in that preacher mode.

Campaigning is his strong point and he returned to it like a redneck to a trailer.

Mister D
06-17-2011, 09:49 PM
Yeah, people get too carried away with the brand name. I asked people a few days ago if they were committed as they appear to be considering all the partisan online and only two responded in the affirmative. What happens next? Same BS. They go right back to it.


It will be (and has been) interesting to see BO's tactics now that he's in campaign mode. He avoided hot button issues like the plague a few months earlier and he's in that preacher mode.

Campaigning is his strong point and he returned to it like a redneck to a trailer.


Our system is partly to blame. Our pols always seem to be campaigning.

Captain Obvious
06-17-2011, 09:53 PM
Yeah, people get too carried away with the brand name. I asked people a few days ago if they were committed as they appear to be considering all the partisan online and only two responded in the affirmative. What happens next? Same BS. They go right back to it.


It will be (and has been) interesting to see BO's tactics now that he's in campaign mode. He avoided hot button issues like the plague a few months earlier and he's in that preacher mode.

Campaigning is his strong point and he returned to it like a redneck to a trailer.


Our system is partly to blame. Our pols always seem to be campaigning.


I don't know if it's the system so much - I think you mean the two party system. I have other issues with it, but as far as the regular joe understanding political issues and making an educated vote instead of voting out of emotion, that's a fundamental flaw.

My theory has always been the fat and lazy effect. We as a society have become far too fat and lazy to give a shit. Consistent low voter turnout is a great example. "Swing" voters are another.

There's a lot to be said about having to fight for your freedom and having it defended for you by someone else.

Mister D
06-17-2011, 10:17 PM
What I mean is that they are career politicians. Ultimately, what matters is reelection not doing what he/she thinks is right.

Captain Obvious
06-17-2011, 10:20 PM
What I mean is that they are career politicians. Ultimately, what matters is reelection not doing what he/she thinks is right.


This is a fascinating conundrum.

On one hand I'll rail about there being a need for term limits, transparency, limited benefits for elected legislation, stuff like that.

On the other hand, and especially with POTUS, you see a lot of short-term strategies. GW did it with Medicare (the drug option), it was executed for his reelection. A lot of decisions are made based on how close a POTUS is to reelection and how popular that strategy is.

Mister D
06-17-2011, 10:23 PM
What I mean is that they are career politicians. Ultimately, what matters is reelection not doing what he/she thinks is right.


This is a fascinating conundrum.

On one hand I'll rail about there being a need for term limits, transparency, limited benefits for elected legislation, stuff like that.

On the other hand, and especially with POTUS, you see a lot of short-term strategies. GW did it with Medicare (the drug option), it was executed for his reelection. A lot of decisions are made based on how close a POTUS is to reelection and how popular that strategy is.


True. I'm sure it goes right down to the local level too. When reelection is close no one wants to take a stand on principles. I almost resent them when they do because it's sometimes because they are know they won't be reelected or they are leaving politics. Why didn't they do it before?

Captain Obvious
06-17-2011, 10:28 PM
What I mean is that they are career politicians. Ultimately, what matters is reelection not doing what he/she thinks is right.


This is a fascinating conundrum.

On one hand I'll rail about there being a need for term limits, transparency, limited benefits for elected legislation, stuff like that.

On the other hand, and especially with POTUS, you see a lot of short-term strategies. GW did it with Medicare (the drug option), it was executed for his reelection. A lot of decisions are made based on how close a POTUS is to reelection and how popular that strategy is.


True. I'm sure it goes right down to the local level too. When reelection is close no one wants to take a stand on principles. I almost resent them when they do because it's sometimes because they are know they won't be reelected or they are leaving politics. Why didn't they do it before?


Exactly.

It's like running for governer of California - who the fuck wants that job?

There is only one clear road for that ruined state, stop spending, get rid of public sector pensions and benefits and create jobs.

The only way to do that is with a sledgehammer and if you're not willing to do that, you're lying to everyone around you. And if that is what you are going to do, you're going to be the focal point of a huge smear campaign from the unions and other special interests.

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 05:47 AM
the foundation for today's challenges lie within the destruction of the individual, family and the evolution/manipulation of public ed......we are challenged to first swim against the current and then turn the tide of culture but this must take place within ourselves and our families....seizing upon this inner renaissance we must now take control of our schools kicking to the curb curriculum and purveyors of social engineering.....on the national front we must be vocal, articulate, amplified and clear in our adherence to conservative principle and the demand that those we elect demonstrate fidelity to the constitution and it's limitations of govt.....

spunkloaf
06-18-2011, 11:00 AM
the foundation for today's challenges lie within the destruction of the individual, family and the evolution/manipulation of public ed......we are challenged to first swim against the current and then turn the tide of culture but this must take place within ourselves and our families....seizing upon this inner renaissance we must now take control of our schools kicking to the curb curriculum and purveyors of social engineering.....on the national front we must be vocal, articulate, amplified and clear in our adherence to conservative principle and the demand that those we elect demonstrate fidelity to the constitution and it's limitations of govt.....


I think public schools are too finicky about the kinds of things they teach because they're afraid of who they will offend.

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 12:33 PM
the foundation for today's challenges lie within the destruction of the individual, family and the evolution/manipulation of public ed......we are challenged to first swim against the current and then turn the tide of culture but this must take place within ourselves and our families....seizing upon this inner renaissance we must now take control of our schools kicking to the curb curriculum and purveyors of social engineering.....on the national front we must be vocal, articulate, amplified and clear in our adherence to conservative principle and the demand that those we elect demonstrate fidelity to the constitution and it's limitations of govt.....


I think public schools are too finicky about the kinds of things they teach because they're afraid of who they will offend.

well that did not take long now did it.....spunk this is a rather pathetically dismal full of nothing analysis.....before you respond review your post and employ the second word within....now, our schools need to focus on the basics/fundamentals....english and all of its components, history to include the constitution and civics, the maths and sciences.....everything else is superfulous.....toss in phys ed for elementary and middle schools a little alternating art/music....toss out the bs electives....enforce a code of behavior and dress.....around grade nine counsel students and parents on a future course of ed either college bound or vocational/tech and there you have it.....this is not about schools being finicky whatever that mindless drivil means spunk.....

spunkloaf
06-18-2011, 01:14 PM
well that did not take long now did it.....spunk this is a rather pathetically dismal full of nothing analysis.....before you respond review your post and employ the second word within....now, our schools need to focus on the basics/fundamentals....english and all of its components, history to include the constitution and civics, the maths and sciences.....everything else is superfulous.....toss in phys ed for elementary and middle schools a little alternating art/music....toss out the bs electives....enforce a code of behavior and dress.....around grade nine counsel students and parents on a future course of ed either college bound or vocational/tech and there you have it.....this is not about schools being finicky whatever that mindless drivil means spunk.....

It's great to be insulted by you again, Grumpy! :-*

I think your words have some weight to them, you recognize that the public education industry (pun) is too diluted with bullshit and has weak standards, and is costing way too much money to be performing this poorly. I agree with that, if that's what I read from you.

I will have to look up some valid arguments for and against a school dress code to understand how I sit with that.

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 01:57 PM
thank you spunk and i will endeavor to be less grumpy.....uniforms change the headset of the individual as soon as they are put on....further they eliminate the rich/poor, in style out of style aspects of school.....i would almost advocate for single sex schools elementary and middle....we certainly need competition with private concerns in this area.....further i would eliminate cafeterias in public schools....part of being a parent is feeding your child.....children would report to home rooms for lunch....the day would be shorter out by 2pm with school run on a trimester basis....what i am saying is that we have allowed schools to indoctrinate/inculcate our children with progressive/socialist/fascist dogma and world views....that must change if we are to survive....

Mindy
06-18-2011, 02:17 PM
Schools should be for real world training. By running it like a prison -- uniforms, same sex, etc. your eliminating lessons that need to be learned earlier, not later. You want to make everyone the same and eliminate a rich/poor divide? Sounds like socialism. Look, the reality is that how much money you have matters, how good you are with the opposite sex matters, individuality and your place in society matters. This is the real world, enough with coddling kids. Not sure what you mean by eliminating a cafeteria and then having kids eat in a home room. I guess in your mind the kids with parents who forgot to pack a lunch should go hungry?

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 03:13 PM
Schools should be for real world training. By running it like a prison -- uniforms, same sex, etc. your eliminating lessons that need to be learned earlier, not later. You want to make everyone the same and eliminate a rich/poor divide? Sounds like socialism. Look, the reality is that how much money you have matters, how good you are with the opposite sex matters, individuality and your place in society matters. This is the real world, enough with coddling kids. Not sure what you mean by eliminating a cafeteria and then having kids eat in a home room. I guess in your mind the kids with parents who forgot to pack a lunch should go hungry?

cindy, real world training begins when one leaves home, leaves school and enters the real world....uniforms change the headset of the youth toward buying into the reality that at school certain behaviors are required and education is their job....uniforms are not synonomous with socialism and if you believe that they are then you don't know anything about either.....with regard to single sex ed, i put this forth for consideration given the ridiculous degree to which we have sexualize our children and the obvious distraction this presents in schools....THINK about it....cindy focusing on the development of the basics of education (math, english, science, history) is not coddling kids....finally, given the fact that some 47 million currently recieve food stamps, there is no excuse whatsoever for any child to arrive at school without a sack lunch.....in other words this is another problem that should be referred to the appropriate authorities.....it is the responsibility of parents to feed their children cindy not the state.

Mindy
06-18-2011, 03:25 PM
School should be training for the real world. Otherwise there's no point. I agree in teaching the subjects you mentioned. I don't think children are sexualized, not sure what you mean by that. Your argument for feeding children makes no sense. Do you propose we incarcerate the parents who forgot to pack a lunch? Seriously, what would you suggest be done with those children who come from middle class families and don't have food stamps? It seems to me you are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think our school system is broken because of the massive expense of school lunches. There are a lot bigger fish to fry before we worry about cafeterias.

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 03:42 PM
School should be training for the real world. Otherwise there's no point. I agree in teaching the subjects you mentioned. I don't think children are signalized, not sure what you mean by that. Your argument for feeding children makes no sense. Do you propose we incarcerate the parents who forgot to pack a lunch? Seriously, what would you suggest be done with those children who come from middle class families and don't have food stamps? It seems to me you are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think our school system is broken because of the massive expense of school lunches. There are a lot bigger fish to fry before we worry about cafeterias.

Mindy/Cindy school is school Cindy, real world realities will come and are learned in the real world with real world consequences....school exists for academic instruction first and foremost.....all other benefits are secondary....Mindy what do you propose we do with parents that engage in behaviors that are neglectful......missing a lunch will not inflict long term harm upon a child while missing obvious signs of criminal neglect will.....make parents parent Mindy.....the requirements for food stamps are extremely lax as i said some 47 million are reported to be receiving food stamps...are you actually suggesting that middle class families cannot afford two slices of bread and peanut butter and if people are either too busy or too distracted to feed their children then we really do have a problem that is insolvable....the state usurping the fundamental responsibility of parents to feed their children is a problem Mindy.....

Mindy
06-18-2011, 03:46 PM
I must really be missing something, I had no idea school lunches were so controversial. If you're supporting the idea of parents using food stamps then I don't see why you're against schools providing food. Of course middle school families can afford bread and peanut butter, but that's not a very nutritious meal. I would rather have the kids spend an hour reading with their parents and have the school charge them at cost for healthy, nutritious food. Considering how most Americans eat, it'd be better for the kids to eat at school, and it's not realistic to think that parents will become chefs.

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 04:16 PM
mindy you desire to have parents spend time reading to their children because you recognize that this is part and parcel of parenting....so is feeding your child mindy....it is all about perception mindy....THINK about it.

Mindy
06-18-2011, 04:29 PM
So you want the government to decide who is a good parent and who is a bad parent? No thanks, I think the government can stay the heck out of my business. There is no way to enforce your dream of ideal parents. Neglect, sure, but bad lunches and not reading / spending time with the children is not going to be enforceable. Never mind the fact that these days with the economy it takes two earners in the family to eek out a living, not like the old days when Mom could afford to stay home.

GRUMPY
06-18-2011, 06:36 PM
now you are being more than a little silly.....is there some debate that parents who fail to feed their children are failing to meet their responsibility as a parent....do you not believe that in demonstrated instances of neglect and abuse that someone should intervene.....this is not about ideal parents nor is this about how many parents it takes to "eek out a living", but frankly if you are "eeking out a living" maybe just maybe you should reconsider starting a family....no mindy this was a conversation about public ed....my position regarding school lunches is that it only adds to the perception of govt as caretaker.

spunkloaf
06-19-2011, 09:17 AM
thank you spunk and i will endeavor to be less grumpy.....uniforms change the headset of the individual as soon as they are put on....further they eliminate the rich/poor, in style out of style aspects of school.....i would almost advocate for single sex schools elementary and middle....we certainly need competition with private concerns in this area.....further i would eliminate cafeterias in public schools....part of being a parent is feeding your child.....children would report to home rooms for lunch....the day would be shorter out by 2pm with school run on a trimester basis....what i am saying is that we have allowed schools to indoctrinate/inculcate our children with progressive/socialist/fascist dogma and world views....that must change if we are to survive....


Ok I get that. What about when the child meets the world and people are not walking around in uniforms?

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 09:50 AM
thank you spunk and i will endeavor to be less grumpy.....uniforms change the headset of the individual as soon as they are put on....further they eliminate the rich/poor, in style out of style aspects of school.....i would almost advocate for single sex schools elementary and middle....we certainly need competition with private concerns in this area.....further i would eliminate cafeterias in public schools....part of being a parent is feeding your child.....children would report to home rooms for lunch....the day would be shorter out by 2pm with school run on a trimester basis....what i am saying is that we have allowed schools to indoctrinate/inculcate our children with progressive/socialist/fascist dogma and world views....that must change if we are to survive....


Ok I get that. What about when the child meets the world and people are not walking around in uniforms?

you mean every afternoon after school, at home, on the weekends doing whatever......are you stating that youth educated in academies or parochial environments are less able to function and contribute to society than your typical public ed grad.....

spunkloaf
06-19-2011, 10:43 AM
thank you spunk and i will endeavor to be less grumpy.....uniforms change the headset of the individual as soon as they are put on....further they eliminate the rich/poor, in style out of style aspects of school.....i would almost advocate for single sex schools elementary and middle....we certainly need competition with private concerns in this area.....further i would eliminate cafeterias in public schools....part of being a parent is feeding your child.....children would report to home rooms for lunch....the day would be shorter out by 2pm with school run on a trimester basis....what i am saying is that we have allowed schools to indoctrinate/inculcate our children with progressive/socialist/fascist dogma and world views....that must change if we are to survive....


Ok I get that. What about when the child meets the world and people are not walking around in uniforms?

you mean every afternoon after school, at home, on the weekends doing whatever......are you stating that youth educated in academies or parochial environments are less able to function and contribute to society than your typical public ed grad.....


I'm sorry, I was referring more to the symbolism of the uniforms. This discussion can also include same sex schools. In the real world, people wear their own things. Sometimes it gets freaky. In the real world, men walk around among women and vice versa. That can also sometimes get freaky. lol. :bananabutt: My point is I guess I don't understand how it will bring forth the virtues you think it will in the school environment.

Mister D
06-19-2011, 11:22 AM
What is the symbolism of the uniforms? They have a practical, concrete function.

spunkloaf
06-19-2011, 11:34 AM
Do elaborate if you please to, I'm failing to recognize the function.

Mister D
06-19-2011, 11:38 AM
Do elaborate if you please to, I'm failing to recognize the function.


What do uniforms do in a military setting? You to have the idea that a school should be nurturing your individuality.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 11:54 AM
i kinda let this drop because i don't think you will get it spunk....it is about changing the headset and controlling the environment toward modifying behavior.....

spunkloaf
06-19-2011, 12:20 PM
I think then you understand why such an idea is not exactly stupid or anything, but is also not exactly pliable simply because it has directly to do with modifying behavior. That's something people just will not have. I agree it would make things much easier though.

GRUMPY
06-19-2011, 01:24 PM
I think then you understand why such an idea is not exactly stupid or anything, but is also not exactly pliable simply because it has directly to do with modifying behavior. That's something people just will not have. I agree it would make things much easier though.

spunk what are you talking about.....are you smoking something....this is really not a difficult nor original idea....this is not something new or revolutionary and people modify their behavior all of the time according to circumstance, environment and expectation....

spunkloaf
06-19-2011, 01:51 PM
I think then you understand why such an idea is not exactly stupid or anything, but is also not exactly pliable simply because it has directly to do with modifying behavior. That's something people just will not have. I agree it would make things much easier though.

spunk what are you talking about.....are you smoking something....this is really not a difficult nor original idea....this is not something new or revolutionary and people modify their behavior all of the time according to circumstance, environment and expectation....

I'm just saying people won't accept that, is all. Any kind of behavior modification these days needs to be covert, or else needs to be enjoyable for people.

spunkloaf
06-19-2011, 01:55 PM
I think then you understand why such an idea is not exactly stupid or anything, but is also not exactly pliable simply because it has directly to do with modifying behavior. That's something people just will not have. I agree it would make things much easier though.

spunk what are you talking about.....are you smoking something....this is really not a difficult nor original idea....this is not something new or revolutionary and people modify their behavior all of the time according to circumstance, environment and expectation....

And to answer your question yes I am smoking something. But I have an announcement to make, I quit smoking cigarettes as of September 2010. Tobacco free.

Conley
06-19-2011, 02:45 PM
I think then you understand why such an idea is not exactly stupid or anything, but is also not exactly pliable simply because it has directly to do with modifying behavior. That's something people just will not have. I agree it would make things much easier though.

spunk what are you talking about.....are you smoking something....this is really not a difficult nor original idea....this is not something new or revolutionary and people modify their behavior all of the time according to circumstance, environment and expectation....

And to answer your question yes I am smoking something. But I have an announcement to make, I quit smoking cigarettes as of September 2010. Tobacco free.


CONGRATS !!!

Mister D
06-19-2011, 03:49 PM
I think then you understand why such an idea is not exactly stupid or anything, but is also not exactly pliable simply because it has directly to do with modifying behavior. That's something people just will not have. I agree it would make things much easier though.

spunk what are you talking about.....are you smoking something....this is really not a difficult nor original idea....this is not something new or revolutionary and people modify their behavior all of the time according to circumstance, environment and expectation....

And to answer your question yes I am smoking something. But I have an announcement to make, I quit smoking cigarettes as of September 2010. Tobacco free.


Well that's a step in the right direction.

spunkloaf
06-23-2011, 06:12 PM
I think then you understand why such an idea is not exactly stupid or anything, but is also not exactly pliable simply because it has directly to do with modifying behavior. That's something people just will not have. I agree it would make things much easier though.

spunk what are you talking about.....are you smoking something....this is really not a difficult nor original idea....this is not something new or revolutionary and people modify their behavior all of the time according to circumstance, environment and expectation....

And to answer your question yes I am smoking something. But I have an announcement to make, I quit smoking cigarettes as of September 2010. Tobacco free.


CONGRATS !!!


Thanks Conley, Thanks D.

GRUMPY
06-24-2011, 05:48 AM
and god bless tiny tim too..... ;D ;)

Conley
06-24-2011, 09:11 AM
and god bless tiny tim too..... ;D ;)


god bless you as well, ebenezer scrooge ;)