• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years

regarding the harm from government regulation - this one takes the cake




What a stinking line of garbage.... and what makes it worse is the blatant intellectual fraud that produced it.... and Turtle - you damn well know it.

Words cannot do justice to the level of pure dishonesty it took to write such a ridiculous statement in a discussion about government regulation.

Ok, how about fugitive slave laws?
 
Ok, how about fugitive slave laws?

I am afraid I must call you on your BS Comrade apdst. Fugitive slave laws are not an example of the government regulating slavery.

Please try again.
 
Last edited:
I am afraid I must call you on your BS Comrade apdst. Fugitive slave laws are not an example of the government regulating slavery.

Please try again.

It is an example of powerful government being able to decide who is more equal than others.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have".

Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States.
 
It is an example of powerful government being able to decide who is more equal than others.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have".

Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States.

No it is an example of a racist government making a deal between two groups in order to maintain the unity of the entire state.
 
this is coming from the guy who whines about corporations being oppressors? LOL

Government regulations were the grounds for the final solution

why are you defending the Nazis?

I am defending intellectual honesty.
I am defending basic decency.

Something seriously lacking in your insulting remarks.
 
An observation....

Private schools tend to have a very similar and traditional curriculum (many still require Latin and one other foreign language) and some how those kids do as well, or better, than some of their global counterparts on exams. Schools that have the IB program produce very strong, well-rounded students. What are they doing that is so successful?....what?

It's not a mystery. They get the best students. They have an application process. They don't have to teach every kid off the street.
 
true, many of the teachers at my son's school (where I graduated-it has produced three Rhodes scholars and dozens upon dozes of Ivy League Honors or higher graduates) could not teach in the public schools because they don't have Masters in education degrees. Rather they have masters or doctorates in stuff like English Literature, american History, Biology, Chemistry, etc

which is why the kids from that school are consistently winning all sorts of state competitions in academic subjects even though the teachers aren't qualified according to the public sector teachers' unions

The kids from your school have won those awards because they come from wealthy, educated parents who take their parenting responsibilities seriously. The public school I went to has produced legions of Ivy graduates and national merit scholars for the same reason. In my personal experience it had very little to do with the quality of the teachers.
 
It's not a mystery. They get the best students. They have an application process. They don't have to teach every kid off the street.

I'm curious about whether you find anything wrong with such groupings.
 
That's right and up til now, his policies and executive orders have only succeeded in discouraging job creation.

I beg to differ. As would THOUSANDS of newly hired Boeing employees. His deal with India and Boeing helped create thousands of jobs for Boeing, both here in WA State and around the country. In fact, they're STILL hiring. They will avoid lay-off for many, many years thanks to this deal as well.

Several people I know, who were unemployed for over a year, have a job now. And, we were also granted an additional 13 million(part of money FL gave up) for the high-speed rail network, which also creates jobs.
So even though our unemployment rate sits at a steady 9% in my state, thousands of people have gone back to work. Like I said "more cars than road" right now.

I wouldnt be so quick to say his policies and EOs have "only" succeeded in discouraging job creation. Your opinion is not fact, and plenty of 'newly working' people would be happy to help you understand that
 
Last edited:
I am defending intellectual honesty.
I am defending basic decency.

Something seriously lacking in your insulting remarks.

whatever, Haymarket. you whine about corporations and the rich and defend unions and bloated government
 
The kids from your school have won those awards because they come from wealthy, educated parents who take their parenting responsibilities seriously. The public school I went to has produced legions of Ivy graduates and national merit scholars for the same reason. In my personal experience it had very little to do with the quality of the teachers.

you just make stuff up to fit your agenda. one of the Rhodes scholars was on a scholarship-his dad was a teacher and his mom worked in the cafeteria. but you are correct about taking parenting seriously

now that is something the liberals ignore in their tax tax tax spend spend spend dogma.

if you don't drop out of HS
if you don't do drugs and if you don't spawn children before you get out of school or before you are married your chance of being poor is less than one in twenty

NONE OF THOSE THREE THINGS ARE DEPENDENT On government spending more tax dollars
 
Not sure what you mean by "such groupings".

Schools selecting students by whatever criteria they feel is important and parents doing the same with the schools they apply to.
 
you just make stuff up to fit your agenda. one of the Rhodes scholars was on a scholarship-his dad was a teacher and his mom worked in the cafeteria. but you are correct about taking parenting seriously

now that is something the liberals ignore in their tax tax tax spend spend spend dogma.

if you don't drop out of HS
if you don't do drugs and if you don't spawn children before you get out of school or before you are married your chance of being poor is less than one in twenty

NONE OF THOSE THREE THINGS ARE DEPENDENT On government spending more tax dollars

No, not making anything up. You know perfectly well that the sholarship kid is the exception and not the rule. In any case, I do think that good parenting is far more important than good classroom teaching. But if parenting is lacking then decent schooling is the best chance a kid gets. And by decent schooling I don't just mean good teaching. I think it's at least as important for kids to be in an educational environment where other kids take education seriously.

Thus, when you siphon off the best students from the public school system you do end up creating an environment that's less conducive to learning in the other kids.
 
Schools selecting students by whatever criteria they feel is important and parents doing the same with the schools they apply to.

I think it's fine for private schools to do whatever they want to do. But I don't think it's appropriate for public schools.
 
Thus, when you siphon off the best students from the public school system you do end up creating an environment that's less conducive to learning in the other kids.

Siphon off the best???

AdamT - I have one thing to say about this and don't take it wrong. But never rely on the state to educate your kids. Fill your kids with a thirst for knowledge; buy them books, take them to the library, take them to museums, make them watch movies that are thought provoking.

Understand the limits of public schools...
 
No, not making anything up. You know perfectly well that the sholarship kid is the exception and not the rule. In any case, I do think that good parenting is far more important than good classroom teaching. But if parenting is lacking then decent schooling is the best chance a kid gets. And by decent schooling I don't just mean good teaching. I think it's at least as important for kids to be in an educational environment where other kids take education seriously.

Thus, when you siphon off the best students from the public school system you do end up creating an environment that's less conducive to learning in the other kids.

If a poorly performing student is thought to benefit from being exposed to the presence of highly performing students, then is it unreasonable to presume that highly performing students are harmed by being exposed to poorly performing students?

If this is indeed so, then do you believe that highly performing students have some sort of duty to purposely expose themselves to a less than ideal environment in order to help other students?
 
No, not making anything up. You know perfectly well that the sholarship kid is the exception and not the rule. In any case, I do think that good parenting is far more important than good classroom teaching. But if parenting is lacking then decent schooling is the best chance a kid gets. And by decent schooling I don't just mean good teaching. I think it's at least as important for kids to be in an educational environment where other kids take education seriously.

Thus, when you siphon off the best students from the public school system you do end up creating an environment that's less conducive to learning in the other kids.
In other words, keeping the geniuses with the dummies, is good for the dummies.
 
Siphon off the best???

AdamT - I have one thing to say about this and don't take it wrong. But never rely on the state to educate your kids. Fill your kids with a thirst for knowledge; buy them books, take them to the library, take them to museums, make them watch movies that are thought provoking.

Understand the limits of public schools...

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said above. Unfortunately a lot of kids don't have the benefit of good parents.
 
In other words, keeping the geniuses with the dummies, is good for the dummies.

No, not dummies. But kids whose parents don't give a crap about them, or maybe do but lack parenting skills. In contast I don't think it hurts the kids who do have good parents.
 
Siphon off the best???

AdamT - I have one thing to say about this and don't take it wrong. But never rely on the state to educate your kids. Fill your kids with a thirst for knowledge; buy them books, take them to the library, take them to museums, make them watch movies that are thought provoking.

Understand the limits of public schools...

Do you believe Creationism should be taught in public schools? I ask because many Conservatives think it should, and the way I see it...I, the parent, am ultimately responsible for teaching my children values, morals, principals and about God. So what I cant figure out, is WHY Conservatives want to turn the responsibility of teaching the most personal of issues - God - over to schools?

If you dont support its teaching then never mind :)
 
I am afraid I must call you on your BS Comrade apdst. Fugitive slave laws are not an example of the government regulating slavery.

Please try again.

Actually, it is, but hey, don't let reality confuse you.
 
No, not making anything up. You know perfectly well that the sholarship kid is the exception and not the rule. In any case, I do think that good parenting is far more important than good classroom teaching. But if parenting is lacking then decent schooling is the best chance a kid gets. And by decent schooling I don't just mean good teaching. I think it's at least as important for kids to be in an educational environment where other kids take education seriously.

Thus, when you siphon off the best students from the public school system you do end up creating an environment that's less conducive to learning in the other kids.

If the do-gooders weren't working so hard to destroy the black family and the government wasn't trying so hard to replace the black father, black kids would be alot better off.
 
No it is an example of a racist government making a deal between two groups in order to maintain the unity of the entire state.

So, fugitive slaves laws were passed to harm black people?

I love when Libbos equate slavery to racism. :roll:
 
If the do-gooders weren't working so hard to destroy the black family and the government wasn't trying so hard to replace the black father, black kids would be alot better off.

Perhaps, but I don't think they were doing all that well when the do-badders had them in chains and segregated schools.
 
Back
Top Bottom