Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[frigidweirdo]

Nope. Try again.

Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers? Don't keep up much, do you?

Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.

So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.

You're right, you are a clown. Promise me you'll never change the avatar. It's classic how often people self identify

Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.

Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.

No...vouchers desegregate schools.....that is why obama cancelled the voucher program that let poor kids to to Sidwell Friends, the school his daughters go to.....

Vouchers hand money to rich people who can already afford t pay for private education. Nothing else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.

Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.

Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them



That actually made sense to you, didn't it?

The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot. Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now

I don't think you read what he wrote.

You make poor schools now into schools that have teaching that is just as good as good schools now.

I addressed exactly what he wrote, he traps kids in the crappy schools hoping they will get better. It's a terrible thing to do to the kids who's parents care

"crappy schools" are "crappy" because of the way they're being run.

What needs to happen is a lot of knowledge exchange. So you get principles who are very good at taking poor schools and turning them around helping other principles who are less knowledgeable about this.

You give them the resources to succeed with this knowledge too.

Schools need to get better. A school itself is just a building, what makes a school successful is not necessarily the building but the leadership, the teaching, the ability to get kids on board by being pro-active and make the kids feel like they're succeeding and also to have them succeeding.

And then the union steps in to protect bad teachers.....and there is no accountability for spending money, they lose it, steal it or waste it....don't forget those things....and they are the biggest reason you have a problem with education.

Yeah, we discussed and agreed on that already. This was a sort of "what if" sort of thing.

 

[kaz]

I agree. But the problem is that LoneLaugher and the left say let's allow teacher unions who are locking the current system in place to continue to do so and trap even the kids of parents trying to do something to help their own children in place. You willing to take on the Democrats on those?

Someone should, otherwise the US is headed for the stinkhole. I'm not so worried about that, every country that rises must fall, and they all fall for similar reasons to this.

Yes, you rise through achievement, then the leeches and parasites take over and vote themselves other people's money and act as if they deserve it. We call them Democrats. Though Republicans aren't much better. RKM Brown thinks not giving people other people's money is authoritarian

 

[kaz]

Really? Even re-reading it you didn't get that?

I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives. And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that

No, it could have meant a whole host of things. Your point wasn't clear in the slightest.

You want us to run our lives? That works on a certain level. Ie, people should be able to have the govt not interfere in their lives.

However there are times when you need something like the govt to make sure things work.

The biggest problem in the US and other countries is that people go into politics for the wrong reasons.

Some countries manage to have govts that actually give a damn about the people and make life better.

You have to give me an example of politicians making anyone's "life better." Politicians everywhere only care about making their own lives better

 

[kaz]

Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers? Don't keep up much, do you?

Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.

So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.

You're right, you are a clown. Promise me you'll never change the avatar. It's classic how often people self identify

Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.

Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.

No...vouchers desegregate schools.....that is why obama cancelled the voucher program that let poor kids to to Sidwell Friends, the school his daughters go to.....

Vouchers hand money to rich people who can already afford t pay for private education. Nothing else.

That's ridiculous. Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools. You don't know what you are talking about

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree. But the problem is that LoneLaugher and the left say let's allow teacher unions who are locking the current system in place to continue to do so and trap even the kids of parents trying to do something to help their own children in place. You willing to take on the Democrats on those?

Someone should, otherwise the US is headed for the stinkhole. I'm not so worried about that, every country that rises must fall, and they all fall for similar reasons to this.

Yes, you rise through achievement, then the leeches and parasites take over and vote themselves other people's money and act as if they deserve it. We call them Democrats. Though Republicans aren't much better. RKM Brown thinks not giving people other people's money is authoritarian

The Republicans aren't better in any way at all.

Part of the problem in the US is the Republicans not spending money on things that need money spending on them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's ridiculous. Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools. You don't know what you are talking about

Actually I do know what I'm talking about.

You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?

Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.

Greg Palast Investigative Reporter

76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/

In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.

Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.

It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.

In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.

Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?

Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.

So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Really? Even re-reading it you didn't get that?

I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives. And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that

No, it could have meant a whole host of things. Your point wasn't clear in the slightest.

You want us to run our lives? That works on a certain level. Ie, people should be able to have the govt not interfere in their lives.

However there are times when you need something like the govt to make sure things work.

The biggest problem in the US and other countries is that people go into politics for the wrong reasons.

Some countries manage to have govts that actually give a damn about the people and make life better.

You have to give me an example of politicians making anyone's "life better." Politicians everywhere only care about making their own lives better

Okay, I give the examples of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Germany, Austria. You know, countries that actually have sensible politicians.
Norway has so much money saved up in the bank it's incredible. Other Scandinavian countries and Germanic countries put things in place that are for the good of the people. They didn't go to illegal wars in Iraq, they stayed at home and spent that money on improving the environment, improving fuel efficient cars, improving push biking within cities, improving the look of a city center so it is appealing to people. You know, they make life worth living. They give a damn about people.

 

[blunthead]

KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer. You know what we should do to solve a problem? Nothing!!

I'm not sure what that means.

Member ClosedCaption is not a thinker.

 

[blunthead]

That's ridiculous. Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools. You don't know what you are talking about

Actually I do know what I'm talking about.

You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?

Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.

Greg Palast Investigative Reporter

76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/

In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.

Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.

It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.

In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.

Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?

Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.

So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.

Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.

 

[blunthead]

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models. They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here. Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.

I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's ridiculous. Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools. You don't know what you are talking about

Actually I do know what I'm talking about.

You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?

Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.

Greg Palast Investigative Reporter

76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/

In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.

Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.

It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.

In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.

Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?

Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.

So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.

Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.

Wooptiedoo for you. So you don't believe anything that anyone on the left says, so you limit yourself to just right wing stuff you choose to believe. That's your look out, not mine.

 

[2aguy]

Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers? Don't keep up much, do you?

Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.

So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.

You're right, you are a clown. Promise me you'll never change the avatar. It's classic how often people self identify

Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.

Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.

No...vouchers desegregate schools.....that is why obama cancelled the voucher program that let poor kids to to Sidwell Friends, the school his daughters go to.....

Vouchers hand money to rich people who can already afford t pay for private education. Nothing else.

vouchers allow poor kids a chance at a better education...which is why Obama cancelled the D.C. Voucher program...

 

[2aguy]

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models. They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here. Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.

I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".

Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....

 

[blunthead]

That's ridiculous. Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools. You don't know what you are talking about

Actually I do know what I'm talking about.

You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?

Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.

Greg Palast Investigative Reporter

76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/

In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.

Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.

It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.

In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.

Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?

Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.

So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.

Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.

Wooptiedoo for you. So you don't believe anything that anyone on the left says, so you limit yourself to just right wing stuff you choose to believe. That's your look out, not mine.

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you, frigidweirdo, are responding to my post or one of the others included here. If so, yes, I've satisfied myself that left-wingers opinions, attitudes, emotions, etc are not to be trusted. I have my reasons which explained I've also learned are wasted on some. I mean, look, left-wingers elected the most dangerous politician in American history twice. That alone should be enough evidence that left-wing thinking is way too dangerous. I'm happy to have wooptiedooed you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

vouchers allow poor kids a chance at a better education...which is why Obama cancelled the D.C. Voucher program...

Like I pointed out, generally vouchers TAKE money AWAY from poor kids.

How many poor kids have had a better chance at education because of vouchers?

 

[2aguy]

Really? Even re-reading it you didn't get that?

I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives. And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that

No, it could have meant a whole host of things. Your point wasn't clear in the slightest.

You want us to run our lives? That works on a certain level. Ie, people should be able to have the govt not interfere in their lives.

However there are times when you need something like the govt to make sure things work.

The biggest problem in the US and other countries is that people go into politics for the wrong reasons.

Some countries manage to have govts that actually give a damn about the people and make life better.

You have to give me an example of politicians making anyone's "life better." Politicians everywhere only care about making their own lives better

Okay, I give the examples of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Germany, Austria. You know, countries that actually have sensible politicians.
Norway has so much money saved up in the bank it's incredible. Other Scandinavian countries and Germanic countries put things in place that are for the good of the people. They didn't go to illegal wars in Iraq, they stayed at home and spent that money on improving the environment, improving fuel efficient cars, improving push biking within cities, improving the look of a city center so it is appealing to people. You know, they make life worth living. They give a damn about people.

None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....? And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?

and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's ridiculous. Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools. You don't know what you are talking about

Actually I do know what I'm talking about.

You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?

Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.

Greg Palast Investigative Reporter

76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/

In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.

Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.

It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.

In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.

Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?

Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.

So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.

Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.

Wooptiedoo for you. So you don't believe anything that anyone on the left says, so you limit yourself to just right wing stuff you choose to believe. That's your look out, not mine.

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you, frigidweirdo, are responding to my post or one of the others included here.

You can't tell? Jeez.........

 

[frigidweirdo]

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models. They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here. Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.

I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".

Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....

Will you stop trying to pass off stuff you made up as the truth. We've been through this. Criminals don't get guns "as easily" in Europe, I showed you that prices will generally be much higher for criminals in Europe to get guns than guns in the US go for.

Before your thing was that Europe was more pacific, now you've changed your tune to they're different because govts murder their own people. Either way it still makes no sense at all to how criminals act in the present day.

 

[2aguy]

That's ridiculous. Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools. You don't know what you are talking about

Actually I do know what I'm talking about.

You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?

Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.

Greg Palast Investigative Reporter

76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/

In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.

Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.

It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.

In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.

Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?

Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.

So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.

and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%. vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.