DescentBB

Maybe if Obama and his agendas weren't so absolutely unAmerican, the fractional portion of his education rhetoric that happens to dovetail with where America ought to be going would be easier to align with (being ridiculously generous, here). As it is I don't know what you plan to do with that little gem after you dig it out of the pile of bull★■◆● it's in. I'm not buying. You didn't clean it nearly well enough.

Yes education needs to be addressed in America, but not your way, and not Obama's way. It is not our primary problem, just one of the many symptoms cropping up on the way down.

Maybe if Obama and his agendas weren't so absolutely unAmerican

oh geeze
can't we do better than these kinds of pointless thought-terminating cliches Thorne? come on man, lets try to raise the level of converse eh?
There are entire segments of our collective human cultures dedicated to MOCKING this type of low, jingoist, herpa-derp logic. It's 2012, how can we still be talking like this?!
My jimmies are so, so russled.
[youtube]73KBozIDcbo[/youtube]

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe if Obama and his agendas weren't so absolutely unAmerican...

News Flash: The American way isn't working anymore, that's why the Chinese are succeeding. We should be more Chinese, just like they decided to be more American. Adapt to survive, or, keep spouting off about Obama for the next 4 years and go nowhere.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe if Obama and his agendas weren't so absolutely unAmerican...

News Flash: The American way isn't working anymore, that's why the Chinese are succeeding. We should be more Chinese, just like they decided to be more American. Adapt to survive, or, keep spouting off about Obama for the next 4 years and go nowhere.

I dunno man, maybe Hanjian is Un-American too?
it's probably UnAustralian
And i'm totally sure that No True Scottsman would ever talk like this
hohoho

America was conjured up with ideals geared towards individuals. That's the very nature of capitalism itself. That each man is captain of his own fate and the government provides a good working environment for those ideals to take root and grow. So each man can determine his course and make his life as he sees the world around him.
Slick, your way will, in no time flat, have a small group of people determining how many kids you can have AND what their role in society will be. It's a 180 degree turn from the "foundation of ideals" we as a nation have stood for, and many have died for. The problem is not lack of education or lack of national pride or heritage (though lacking here in more than I would have thought.) The problem is greed and avarice, exactly the things the government was set in place to safeguard against, in the first place. The greedy have swiped up all the dough and then declared themselves indispensible. This just in the last 10 years, but you guys try to persuade those that don't know the difference, that this is how it is and always was. Stinks to high heaven.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe if Obama and his agendas weren't so absolutely unAmerican...

News Flash: The American way isn't working anymore, that's why the Chinese are succeeding. We should be more Chinese, just like they decided to be more American. Adapt to survive, or, keep spouting off about Obama for the next 4 years and go nowhere.

Yes lets be like the Chinese. I suppose for starters you don't mind then if we eliminated the EPA entirely. Or dropped the minimum wage down to $1.50. Or reduced our health care to be on par with there's. Or have their brand of repressive control. Yeah Vision I bet you'd love it.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:Isn't that exactly what I am saying? Maybe, if you weren't a "progressive", you would agree that we should do something now then.

sadly, what we need to do is what the 'Progressive' President has been trying to get done: Rebuild infrastructure, ramp up our entire educational system, subsidize cutting edge businesses trying to gain a foothold in coming industries(ie non-petroleum energy sources, electric vehicles, all manner of similar stuff). In other words, do as the Chinese are doing. Why do you think the Chinese own 95% of the worlds solar panel business? Where do you think they are headed with so many students getting advanced scientific degrees? This stuff shouldn't be some sort of 'left-right' debate, it should be supported by all of us. But, since Barack Obama suggests it, and has from before his election, half of the elected officials can't support it, or try and make the ideals work. Sad. Really, really sad.

What is really sad is how far your head is up Obama's neither region. So you mean by ramping up green energy, you mean wasting billions on plants like Solyndra? As to why the Chinese own anything read my reply to vision.
Name me something that Obama has supported that has turned out profitable? Progressive like in Obamacare? Something so out of wack it is heading for the big crash and burn? What has Obama done to ramp up our educational system? Take a look at the Detroit Public Schools if you want a good example of how Progressive Liberals have ramped it up. Sorry Slick, give some real examples before you tout how wonderful Obama is "trying". Trying and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.

woodchip wrote:I suppose for starters you don't mind then if we eliminated the EPA entirely.

...isn't that the exact thing that most of the Republican primary candidates proposed doing?

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suppose for starters you don't mind then if we eliminated the EPA entirely.

...isn't that the exact thing that most of the Republican primary candidates proposed doing?

Yes because we want our kids to drink filthy water, breath obnoxiously polluted air and eat foods from bacteria infested packaging plants. We think it makes them healthier and smarter too...

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote:News Flash: The American way isn't working anymore, that's why the Chinese are succeeding. We should be more Chinese, just like they decided to be more American. Adapt to survive, or, keep spouting off about Obama for the next 4 years and go nowhere.

Yes lets be like the Chinese. I suppose for starters you don't mind then if we eliminated the EPA entirely. Or dropped the minimum wage down to $1.50. Or reduced our health care to be on par with there's. Or have their brand of repressive control. Yeah Vision I bet you'd love it.

Wow, so much negativity on this forum. God forbid you step outside of blind nationalism to look at what another culture does better and learn from it. I'm no fan of the Chinese, but I also think they have some valuable experience to share with us, you know, being a country that's 20 times older than us...

The sooner you stop pretending/assuming that unAmerican is a buzzword and consider that there is meaning behind it, as I use it, the sooner we can enjoy your "raised level of converse". Obama's ideas are various levels of unAmerican and anti-American. He claims to be all about America and making America "better", but the truth behind all of the rhetoric is that what has really made America America--individual freedom, personal property, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances, small government, and even a concept as basic to freedom as self-determination--is diametrically opposed to many of the popular social and governmental concepts held in high esteem by the likes of Obama, the people he associates with, his friends at the U.N., and callmeslick. They don't like to admit it, because its still unpopular enough, and you don't like to believe it because these 'buzzwords' represent concepts you don't fully comprehend or appreciate, and because of that they sound extreme. You don't comprehend the difference.

vision wrote:I'm no fan of the Chinese, but I also think they have some valuable experience to share with us, you know, being a country that's 20 times older than us...

Yeah, vision, you know for all the good that's done them...

I agree, I just don't think the things we should be learning are what most people seem to be taking away.

To elaborate, I've heard people opine that we need to take a cue from the Chinese as far as infrastructure, but what isn't mentioned is that maybe the only reason they are able to do what they do with infrastructure is because of a lower standard of living--a lower quality of life--truly a lower value placed on the lives of the people who are made to do the work at the behest of the reigning government. I've listened to starry-eyed idealists who espouse a socialistic paradise that I know is only possible if people's work--people's time carries about 1/20th the value it has in a free society. It's what these high-minded people want. At the end of it they've build an empire, but in the meantime you and I aren't worth a damn. Is that what any of you really want?

I'd rather live in a log cabin in the woods and be free than live in a "paradise" and be just another number.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I agree, I just don't think the things we should be learning are what most people seem to be taking away.

Agreed! Some of what we can learn is what not to do. For example, good idea: learn more about how China manages resources for a country roughly the same area as the US with 5 times it's population. Bad idea: adopt China's completely insane human rights (human rights, lol?) policy.

flip wrote:Slick, your way will, in no time flat, have a small group of people determining how many kids you can have AND what their role in society will be

where the feck do you get that from a Federal role in rebuilding the infrastructure, mandating higher academic standards, supporting higher education and funding basic research and development?

.

It's a 180 degree turn from the "foundation of ideals" we as a nation have stood for, and many have died for. The problem is not lack of education or lack of national pride or heritage (though lacking here in more than I would have thought.) The problem is greed and avarice, exactly the things the government was set in place to safeguard against, in the first place. The greedy have swiped up all the dough and then declared themselves indispensible. This just in the last 10 years, but you guys try to persuade those that don't know the difference, that this is how it is and always was. Stinks to high heaven.

nothing, and I mean nothing in the past 10 years is anywhere near as bad as what 'avarice and greed' did to the citizenry in the 19th century. Remember slavery? Sweatshops? Tenament slums? A great mind once opined that 'those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it'. You, Flip, clearly need to get to know history. Not read what others tell you history means, or America means, but really learn history. Then get back to me and show why I am wrong when I state that this is how it is, and how it has been and frankly, this is how the system was laid out in the 1780's

woodchip wrote:[.
Name me something that Obama has supported that has turned out profitable?

General Motors. Too easy.

What has Obama done to ramp up our educational system?

putting Federal money into, IIRC, 23 state plans aimed toward achievement goals far beyond what we've seen before. Delaware and Maryland, in my region, both got nice chunks of change to expand pilot plans that showed real promise. Further, not that any such ideas and plans need BIPARTISAN support to develop in a large-scale comprehensive fashion. One side hasn't lifted any weight, and seems to be disinterested in ever doing so.

Take a look at the Detroit Public Schools if you want a good example of how Progressive Liberals have ramped it up.

and from your vantage point, you have what true insight into the nature of Detroit's problems? Geez, give us a break!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The sooner you stop pretending/assuming that unAmerican is a buzzword and consider that there is meaning behind it, as I use it, the sooner we can enjoy your "raised level of converse". Obama's ideas are various levels of unAmerican and anti-American. He claims to be all about America and making America "better", but the truth behind all of the rhetoric is that what has really made America America--individual freedom, personal property, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances, small government, and even a concept as basic to freedom as self-determination--is diametrically opposed to many of the popular social and governmental concepts held in high esteem by the likes of Obama, the people he associates with, his friends at the U.N., and callmeslick. They don't like to admit it, because its still unpopular enough, and you don't like to believe it because these 'buzzwords' represent concepts you don't fully comprehend or appreciate, and because of that they sound extreme. You don't comprehend the difference.

and, clearly neither do you. Heck, the Aussie has a clearer idea of the ideals and principles upon which this nation was founded
Small government was never part of it, self-determination only worked for a handful of folks, and was designed that way, personal property included other people, etc. This is the 21st century. Our Constitution was designed to allow for an evolving government.
Adjust to the times or die as a collective group of dinosaurs.

One of the most important values this country was founded on, was and still is Freedom and Liberty, and since government & laws by default remove freedoms…then yea, I would have to believe the founding fathers had small government in mind.

In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to create a system of government that protects those freedoms and liberties…not the other way around.

Things have changed a lot from then, and the constitution “was” designed to evolve over time, but not the way it has…IMO.

An easy example is the personal income tax…many people believed that they should have capped it when that amendment went into effect, but no…..

vision wrote:News Flash: The American way isn't working anymore, that's why the Chinese are succeeding. We should be more Chinese, just like they decided to be more American.

Wait a minute, if the Chinese are succeeding, then why did they decide to "be more American", if, as you say, the American way "isn't working anymore"? Your train of thought here sounds self-contradictory.

Spidey wrote:One of the most important values this country was founded on, was and still is Freedom and Liberty

which was precisely why anyone of African Ancestry was considered property.

and since government & laws by default remove freedoms…then yea, I would have to believe the founding fathers had small government in mind.

yeah, that explains Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase. Small government maven and all.......

In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to create a system of government that protects those freedoms and liberties…not the other way around.

actually, they created a system, of government and society, that made it far more likely for the rich to stay rich, and everyone else could fend for themselves. That worked pretty well, by the way, when we had what was called 'the Frontier' and those less fortunate, or perhaps bold individualists, could try to wrest fortune from a largely unsettled region. Notice any glaring differences between the nation in 1788 and that of today??

Things have changed a lot from then, and the constitution “was” designed to evolve over time, but not the way it has…IMO.

well, it is your stated opinion. I might disagree, but mostly, I wonder how YOU think it should have evolved through an Industrial Revolution, modern communications, massive population influxes and a global economy.

An easy example is the personal income tax…many people believed that they should have capped it when that amendment went into effect, but no…..

and how would you pay for your Federal Government.....? Oh yeah, you seem to think we really don't need one.

Debating with people like you slick has become such a bore…I’m not going to spend most of my energy defending myself against something I never said.

what are you talking about, Spidey? I quoted you directly. And, then gave examples and opinions to counter YOUR WORDS.
For this, you throw your hands up and say you cannot debate 'people like' me? Go to the head of your debate class and wave that white flag proudly.



edit, for roid's behalf, and in light of your recent statement in another thread, care to elaborate on that 'crying like a baby' stuff?

Lol, so you would have a regress back into the 19th century? I got nothing else.

dissent wrote:

vision wrote:News Flash: The American way isn't working anymore, that's why the Chinese are succeeding. We should be more Chinese, just like they decided to be more American.

Wait a minute, if the Chinese are succeeding, then why did they decide to "be more American", if, as you say, the American way "isn't working anymore"? Your train of thought here sounds self-contradictory.

You're right, that is poorly worded, thanks for pointing it out. I feel like a successful modern nation embraces science and focuses on exports the world needs (or wants). I think that is what China is doing now, and what the US used to do, or used to do better. This is a gross over-simplification for sure, but I think you can see what I mean. Today the "American way" doesn't seem to line up with the American way of half a century ago. We're now a nation of consumers, not producers.

What I’m talking about slick is using tactics, rather than a straight up debate…

I never said a damn thing about not wanting a Federal Government, that is a strawman argument. And as I said I can’t spend energy defending against something I never said.

JFTR I believe the government should never be one dollar, one person or one law bigger than it needs to be.

As far as your point for point retorts, they are all either irrelevant, cynical or meaningless.

And I have no intention of searching the board for things said years ago, just for your benefit. My point stands just as stated in my post.

.......................

And JFTR point for point retorts don’t make for very good debate anyways, they offer very little in the way of good flow, which I prefer.

vision wrote:You're right, that is poorly worded, thanks for pointing it out. I feel like a successful modern nation embraces science ...

I certainly agree with that. My day job depends on it. But wise use of knowledge is at least as important as the knowledge itself.

... and focuses on exports the world needs (or wants).

Careful vision, you sound like you're starting to become a capitalist.

I think that is what China is doing now, and what the US used to do, or used to do better.

China does some of this well, especially as it applies to foreign markets. Nevertheless, even there, and especially domestically I think the Chinese bureaucratic structure (and the corruption within it), leads to significant misallocation of financial and other resources. This has been typical of state run enterprises; they focus on pleasing their own egos or those of a select elite, and end up squandering money on things like this and this.

This is a gross over-simplification for sure, but I think you can see what I mean. Today the "American way" doesn't seem to line up with the American way of half a century ago. We're now a nation of consumers, not producers.

yes I would agree that this is quite over-simplified. The world has changed significantly from what it was a half century ago. Many American innovations have been a significant part of that change.

dissent wrote:

This is a gross over-simplification for sure, but I think you can see what I mean. Today the "American way" doesn't seem to line up with the American way of half a century ago. We're now a nation of consumers, not producers.

yes I would agree that this is quite over-simplified. The world has changed significantly from what it was a half century ago. Many American innovations have been a significant part of that change.

This is also my point. I think a lot of people are clinging to an idea about what the American way is that may be out of date or distorted. To become such a serious world player, I feel like the Chinese probably took a lesson or two from the USA. They adapted. It's time for us to adapt now. The "American way" has probably changed definition a number of times, which is a good thing. I think we need to drop the idea that we do things one way and you're un-American if you do anything different. We can, however, use our past experience and the new experiences of our neighbors to continually redefine the American way for the better. America really did invent the modern world in a sense, with our cars, planes, computers and such. But unfortunately, we're now just responsible for the ideas and patents, and that only goes so far helping the economy. We could benefit from making a few things too it seems. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

flip wrote:Lol, so you would have a regress back into the 19th century? I got nothing else.

You are responding to (and disagreeing with) what Thorne said here right? (bolding by me to highlight).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The sooner you stop pretending/assuming that unAmerican is a buzzword and consider that there is meaning behind it, as I use it, the sooner we can enjoy your "raised level of converse". Obama's ideas are various levels of unAmerican and anti-American. He claims to be all about America and making America "better", but the truth behind all of the rhetoric is that what has really made America America--individual freedom, personal property, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances, small government, and even a concept as basic to freedom as self-determination--is diametrically opposed to many of the popular social and governmental concepts held in high esteem by the likes of Obama, the people he associates with, his friends at the U.N., and callmeslick. They don't like to admit it, because its still unpopular enough, and you don't like to believe it because these 'buzzwords' represent concepts you don't fully comprehend or appreciate, and because of that they sound extreme. You don't comprehend the difference.

callmeslick wrote:General Motors. Too easy.

Lets see, profitability came at the the expense of share holders who lost their stake in GM. Profitibility came by Obama repaying UAW help during election by giving the union a 40% share in the "new" GM. And profitability came via loans of which:

"As for Treasury’s equity stake, worth $40 billion-plus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the Treasury won’t fully recoup that money. The total automaker bailout, including TARP money given to Chrysler, CBO estimates, will cost taxpayers about $34 billion."

Easy indeed

callmeslick wrote:putting Federal money into, IIRC, 23 state plans aimed toward achievement goals far beyond what we've seen before. Delaware and Maryland, in my region, both got nice chunks of change to expand pilot plans that showed real promise. Further, not that any such ideas and plans need BIPARTISAN support to develop in a large-scale comprehensive fashion. One side hasn't lifted any weight, and seems to be disinterested in ever doing so.

Money has been thrown at education for decades. As the famous movie line goes, "Show me the mon.....test scores."

callmeslick wrote: and from your vantage point, you have what true insight into the nature of Detroit's problems? Geez, give us a break!

[/quote]

Having lived in the suburbs of Detroit most of my live, the morass of piss poor educational opportunities that the Detroit Public Schools became over the years has been a constant stream in the news. As of right now the Detroit city council and Mayor Bing have entered a Consent agreement with the state of MI as to how the city should be run. Why? The liberal's who have run the city into the ground to the tune of 600 million in debt and who now needs another 100 million to meet payroll just to keep the city functioning. They seemed to think that the rest of tax payers of MI were somehow obligated to keep them afloat. Perhaps Slick, you should take a ride through Detroit and maybe you'll understand why Detroit is one of the few large cities that has lost population (something like 25% in 10 years). Want to see what liberal fiscal policies do? Just look at Detroit.
Want to argue more about my insight?

roid wrote:

flip wrote:Lol, so you would have a regress back into the 19th century? I got nothing else.

You are responding to (and disagreeing with) what Thorne said here right? (bolding by me to highlight).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The sooner you stop pretending/assuming that unAmerican is a buzzword and consider that there is meaning behind it, as I use it, the sooner we can enjoy your "raised level of converse". Obama's ideas are various levels of unAmerican and anti-American. He claims to be all about America and making America "better", but the truth behind all of the rhetoric is that what has really made America America--individual freedom, personal property, innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances, small government, and even a concept as basic to freedom as self-determination--is diametrically opposed to many of the popular social and governmental concepts held in high esteem by the likes of Obama, the people he associates with, his friends at the U.N., and callmeslick. They don't like to admit it, because its still unpopular enough, and you don't like to believe it because these 'buzzwords' represent concepts you don't fully comprehend or appreciate, and because of that they sound extreme. You don't comprehend the difference.

My response was directed at Slick. He keeps trying to make the case of how everything in this country was created and setup by the rich and influential and now they are just reaping all the hard work they have sowed. All this in the face of the progress we've made in the last 2 centuries. We end slavery, we liberate and give equal status to women, we create labor laws to prevent child labor and Slick would have us all go back to that with his Chinese philosophy. The diversity and equality we all enjoy now is the direct result of putting the individual above the needs of the whole.

[youtube]ouxyzwHpwt4[/youtube]

You want an idea of how the rich are looking at things, as if they ever eat at Burger King anyways. This is their idea of America now, where they can do anything they want as the rich, ruling elite, and we sit in long lines to get served pink slime. I see this idea permeating advertising.

Nico-Laitian: To conquer the lay people

Did you miss that Slick was responding to that post by Thorne?
Thorne was saying the past was great, Slick was saying it's wasn't.
So you're agreeing with Slick, not disagreeing.

Unless i'm reading this wrong somehow.

If the past wasn't great, why did all those people immigrate here?

My responses to Slick are sums of the whole at this point. I imagine he gets the gist, just as I do. I actually think I and Slick want the same things for America, he just doesn't seem to realize what exactly made this country strong in the first place. Coming from exactly the same direction we are heading back towards. There is a reason the individual got so upheld here, it was the only thing to break the rule of the few. You have to make a choice. Live in a somewhat dangerous world where you are free to explore and discover as you choose, or live in one where everything is determined for you, and to think that one is gonna be any safer is a lie, it just that grass seems greener now. The only way to prevent dominant rule of the few is to strengthen the individual. It's basically one of 2 choices your given.

EDIT: On top of that, we don't need "education". My uncle quit school at 14, became plant manager of the clorox plant. My grandfather quit school at 12, retired handsomely from the railroad. What we need is what Vision said, opportunity. We need to be able to create our own jobs and put money in our pockets. They have hoarded up all the grain.

woodchip wrote:If the past wasn't great, why did all those people immigrate here?

Because things were even shittier where they lived, and they had wildly-unrealistic expectations for what life in America would be like. Or do you really think the streets were literally "paved with gold" in the late 1800s?

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:If the past wasn't great, why did all those people immigrate here?

Because things were even shittier where they lived, and they had wildly-unrealistic expectations for what life in America would be like. Or do you really think the streets were literally "paved with gold" in the late 1800s?

No more than they were during the twentieth century yet the people kept pouring in, knowing full well the real gold was opportunity.

flip wrote:Lol, so you would have a regress back into the 19th century? I got nothing else.

huh, where did I say that? Or suggest it, even? In fact, I am trying to suggest that we accept that the 21st century is so vastly different that we cannot stick rigidly to 19th century thinking to deal with it.

roid wrote:Did you miss that Slick was responding to that post by Thorne?
Thorne was saying the past was great, Slick was saying it's wasn't.
So you're agreeing with Slick, not disagreeing.

Unless i'm reading this wrong somehow.

you aren't

woodchip wrote:If the past wasn't great, why did all those people immigrate here?

you want me to describe the process for the 12% of the population which is African American first, or save that until after I cover the ones who CHOSE to come here? Yeesh! At any rate, if you were starving to death in Europe, or the target of a genocidal regime, working in a sweatshop and living in a 5th floor walkup tenement was a big step up. Didn't mean you weren't heavily exploited cheap labor, but it worked. And, they had a chance to change things due to the lower population density and available open lands to move to.

flip wrote:On top of that, we don't need "education". My uncle quit school at 14, became plant manager of the clorox plant. My grandfather quit school at 12, retired handsomely from the railroad. What we need is what Vision said, opportunity. We need to be able to create our own jobs and put money in our pockets. They have hoarded up all the grain.

Flip, this is the 21st century. I repeat, the 21st century. It isn't you uncle's or grandfather's world any more. Workers in the US have to compete in a global marketplace, at ever narrowing wage gaps, for better or worse. If you want a job that pays squat in the future, you will need an education, and a damned good one. It's that simple. Sure, there will be exceptions, but they are few and far between.
I might add, that in your granddad's time, I would suspect the educational rigor he got from 6th grade is equal to the watered down crap that passes today for a high school education. Look back, even further, to the letters written by common men, educated in one room schoolhouses, during the Civil War. Good solid prose, fairly good spelling, good grasp of larger issues. These weren't, for their time, ignorant men. Herein is one place I would agree with the likes of Woodchip and Spidey on the role of government. No amount of government or money addresses educational issues fully. You need the committment of the population as a whole, which we once had, and now do not.

Slick, try not to quadruple-post, would you?