DescentBB

If you do not have the money for education, in Moscow, anyone from any country can get quality free higher education in any subject of science.

Sigma, we spend more on education per capita than most countries. We have cultural issues and labor union issues and political issues that get in the way of making all that money reach its declared end goal.
But, on the bright side, we have more students available to apply for schooling that didn't get sent to the salt mines for disagreeing with our leaders than Russia does.

Will Robinson wrote:But, on the bright side, we have more students available to apply for schooling that didn't get sent to the salt mines for disagreeing with our leaders than Russia does.

I'm sorry, I did not understand the meaning of this phrase. You drew an analogy with the students in Russia and the salt mines? In this case, you forgot to mention molybdenum and uranium mines, in which students are forced to work, coming to get an education in Russia. Please give a detailed answer, what exactly did you mean.

sigma wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But, on the bright side, we have more students available to apply for schooling that didn't get sent to the salt mines for disagreeing with our leaders than Russia does.

I'm sorry, I did not understand the meaning of this phrase. You drew an analogy with the students in Russia and the salt mines? In this case, you forgot to mention molybdenum and uranium mines, in which students are forced to work, coming to get an education in Russia. Please give a detailed answer, what exactly did you mean.

I was implying that, although you may think Russia is a superior place for a person to grow up thanks to the free education, it has its drawbacks...like severe punishment for free speech. It diminishes the value of a government provided education if that same government also puts you in the gulag for speaking freely.

What the fucк, GULAG? ★■◆●ing fucked. English language just does not have the words to fully express what I want to tell you. Russia has more than 20 years is a democratic country. I surprise that the American way of thinking is still in the 20th century... Although there is nothing to be surprised. Today, the American propaganda machine is working at full capacity. And you know what I see in the last days? Russian media are beginning to use American methods of propaganda, and it saddens me greatly. It's a vicious circle. When it comes to a fight in which no one can win, one of the parties must include the brain and not emotions. Russia many times to make concessions to the United States, and now it's your turn to show goodwill.

sigma wrote:What the fucк, GULAG? **** ****. English language just does not have the words to fully express what I want to tell you. Russia has more than 20 years is a democratic country. I surprise that the American way of thinking is still in the 20th century... Although there is nothing to be surprised. Today, the American propaganda machine is working at full capacity. And you know what I see in the last days? Russian media are beginning to use American methods of propaganda, and it saddens me greatly. It's a vicious circle. When it comes to a fight in which no one can win, one of the parties must include the brain and not emotions. Russia many times to make concessions to the United States, and now it's your turn to show goodwill.

Pussy Riot.

"Putin stated that the band had "undermined the moral foundations" of the nation and "got what they asked for".

sigma you have no idea just how little freedom you have.

Pussy Riot? You've heard their songs? It has nothing to do with music. This group was not created because these girls can sing, but for entirely different purposes, which we all know.

Okay, what is freedom, in your opinion?

sigma wrote:Pussy Riot? You've heard their songs? It has nothing to do with music. This group was not created because these girls can sing, but for entirely different purposes, which we all know.

Okay, what is freedom, in your opinion?

Lol! Just looking at that ^ is funny as hell...
And I don't mean that in an 'I'm laughing at you' kind of way.
Funny as in it is proof of my point and affirms you can't see it all at once which is both frustrating and amusing.

Anyway I'll try.
And maybe the mods can split this off if you ask them too because we are totally interrupting slicks thread on a different subject.
(My fault there, sorry slick. The Russian guy poked me in the eye with his higher education in Russia thing.)

One aspect of 'my idea of freedom' is having a government that can survive a bunch of girls singing bad things about it without feeling a need to put them in prison.
Another, related aspect, is that government not even having the authority to imprison people for dissent.
Where I live I have those freedoms.

And the 'freedom of the press' that we have here kicks ass! I put it above all others that are named in our Constitution.
Without it you can't possibly know what you are missing.
In fact if anyone over there tried to tell you they might end up in prison beside those horrible criminals Pussy Riot! Lol!

I have visions of a group W bench in the Russian prison where the father rapers and mother stabbers are afraid of the little Pussy Riot girls lol.

Pussy riot = American CIA plant designed to tear down Russian society in sigma's mind

You can openly answer the question, if Pussy Riot broke into any American Christian church, and built there to the demonic dances on altar, as they did in the Russian Christian church, what the reaction would be from you?

In the United States today is so fantastic freedom of speech that the government strongly not recommends famous Hollywood actors to publicly express their sympathy to the Russia.

No one in american government would put them in prison for that.
They might be arrested for disturbing the peace or trespassing if they refused to leave after a policeman told them to leave. They might have to pay for damages if they broke things but they wouldn't get a prison sentence for such a minor offense. A night in the local jail and released on their own promise to appear in court where a judge would fine them $50 and tell them to keep their protest act out of other peoples private property where they would be free to embarrass the government and say anything they want about them.

That is the key...'minor offense'.
Just because it is some kind of embarrassment for your political leaders to have such a display/protest take place they just simply send you and your fellow citizens to prison to silence your voice.

My government doesn't have that kind of authority. I am at least that much 'more free' here in america.

sigma wrote:..
In the United States today is so fantastic freedom of speech that the government strongly not recommends famous Hollywood actors to publicly express their sympathy to the Russia.

I don't know of anything like that happening. The government has no authority to do that. They can ask, and often do. There are a lot of celebrities who say all sorts of things to help Obama because they want to help him out of their own personal political loyalties.
But anyone, famous or not is free to say anything they want to.

Maybe you should wonder why you have been given that idea...

About Pussy Riot. Russian legislation does provide for punishment for hooliganism as a preventive measure arrest for 15 days. But you do not think that's a big difference, if you break a window of a store or piss on the Statue of Liberty, singing that the President of the USA is a schmuck?

sigma wrote:About Pussy Riot. Russian legislation does provide for punishment for hooliganism as a preventive measure arrest for 15 days. But you do not think that's a big difference, if you break a window of a store or piss on the Statue of Liberty, singing that the President of the USA is a schmuck?

No difference.
The president is an employee, not a czar.

Will Robinson wrote:

sigma wrote:About Pussy Riot. Russian legislation does provide for punishment for hooliganism as a preventive measure arrest for 15 days. But you do not think that's a big difference, if you break a window of a store or piss on the Statue of Liberty, singing that the President of the USA is a schmuck?

No difference.
The president is an employee, not a czar.

Awesome news. I think it is no secret that the President of the United States serves as a wedding general, at the time, as any Russian President has real power, which can only be compared with the power of the tsar, as you say.

Will Robinson wrote:Sigma, we spend more on education per capita than most countries. We have cultural issues and labor union issues and political issues that get in the way of making all that money reach its declared end goal.
But, on the bright side, we have more students available to apply for schooling that didn't get sent to the salt mines for disagreeing with our leaders than Russia does.

We also spend more per capita on health care and that doesn't get us anything better than the rest of the world either. And wake up Will, the end goal of making money in this day and age is to make some schmuck filthy, stinking rich. It doesn't go to increasing wages, funding better education and health care, or improving our infrastructure.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Sigma, we spend more on education per capita than most countries. We have cultural issues and labor union issues and political issues that get in the way of making all that money reach its declared end goal.
But, on the bright side, we have more students available to apply for schooling that didn't get sent to the salt mines for disagreeing with our leaders than Russia does.

We also spend more per capita on health care and that doesn't get us anything better than the rest of the world either. And wake up Will, the end goal of making money in this day and age is to make some schmuck filthy, stinking rich. It doesn't go to increasing wages, funding better education and health care, or improving our infrastructure.

TC you are doing the apples to oranges mistake.
When I say we spend more per capita I mean our government spends more than any other.
Healthcare is a private expense. Even now under the fabled Obamacare it is largely private.

As to rest of your rant....I don't know what your point is. Probably because you got all confused about the spending and who was doing it.

Granted, K-12 education is for the most part, public, and failing. That is rapidly changing though. There are all sorts of private schools and charter schools sprouting up to cater to those with money, money that is being bled from the whole system. How is that beneficial, or better, to our nation as a whole, to cater privately to those few with money, so only they can obtain better education? What happens to those who are less fortunate or poor? It's a have and have not type of thinking. Plus, getting a college education is now mostly a private endeavor. State legislators have pretty much gutted funding for most of our public state colleges, were anyone could go to get a decent and cheap college education and a good paying job waiting in the wings in the past. My entire college education, 4 years, only cost me around $12,000 in tuition and room and board back in the early 1970's. We're now releasing a whole generation of students into the world saddled with massive amounts of debt into a workforce with lower wages and salaries than ever before.

I don’t know tc, private schools have been around forever, and those who place their children in private schools still have to pay for the public schools as well.

(and private schools do it cheaper)

If there is a funding problem…I can’t see it because there are fewer kids to use the available resources, and if there is a problem with getting federal funding because it is based on heads…well that can be changed.

Is taking your child from a bad place to a good place secondary to maintaining the fate of the group as a whole being equal?

I have a responsibility to provide the best I can for my children and do not have a duty to support the status quo.

If I can only save one child it will be my own. If I can save mine and contribute to the salvation of others I will do that. But I don't think anyone should have to harm their children so that all children are equally harmed. That kind of logic is crossing a line that a parent shouldn't cross in my estimation.

But Will…….It’s for the good of the collective.

tunnelcat wrote:Granted, K-12 education is for the most part, public, and failing. That is rapidly changing though. There are all sorts of private schools and charter schools sprouting up to cater to those with money, money that is being bled from the whole system. How is that beneficial, or better, to our nation as a whole, to cater privately to those few with money, so only they can obtain better education? What happens to those who are less fortunate or poor? It's a have and have not type of thinking. Plus, getting a college education is now mostly a private endeavor. State legislators have pretty much gutted funding for most of our public state colleges, were anyone could go to get a decent and cheap college education and a good paying job waiting in the wings in the past. My entire college education, 4 years, only cost me around $12,000 in tuition and room and board back in the early 1970's. We're now releasing a whole generation of students into the world saddled with massive amounts of debt into a workforce with lower wages and salaries than ever before.

you know not that which you speak


Spidey is right

Correction, I should have said charter schools, which have only been around since the 1990's and ARE growing in number. They're still private schools though and they're using some sort of public funds to run them, in all but a handful of states. But whether it hurts or helps the local public schools depends on what method the state uses to fund those schools and the population demographics of that particular area. Some states have actually further hurt their public schools during the creation of those new charter schools, other states have made no impact on their public schools thanks to their demographics and different methodologies. So the next question is, if people think private charter schools can do it all better, why doesn't every public school in the nation just become a nice new shiny charter school, or isn't there enough money to go around? If there's not enough money, there will still be kids who get short changed in some public schools when they get their education.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov ... odys-says/

http://www.education.com/magazine/artic ... r-schools/

Seems like you are saying it isn't the charter school that is the problem but some choices made in how to implement them.

You're still forgetting the population losses in many of those suffering urban areas. I'm guessing you don't like the idea of busing in students to fill empty seats to bolster funding in those declining schools.

tunnelcat wrote:You're still forgetting the population losses in many of those suffering urban areas. I'm guessing you don't like the idea of busing in students to fill empty seats to bolster funding in those declining schools.

The ratio of minorities outnumber the white people abandoning the urban centers so maybe the fate of the failing schools isn't much of a concern compared to the concern we should have toward the cause of the exodus.

So what causes the exodus, lack of employment? What causes the unemployment, being uneducated, or being lazy?

I no longet let my schooling interfere with my education.