CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 79

post #3901 of 10455
The author forgot to work Reverend Wright into it, preferably in the line immediately following the accusation that the President is a Muslim.
post #3902 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

The author forgot to work Reverend Wright into it, preferably in the line immediately following the accusation that the President is a Muslim.

 

Also missing ACORN, secret Socialist, and forcing every one to get contraceptives but also abortions.  And dead grandparents because: healthcare.

 

I think I missed a few as well.

post #3903 of 10455

 Death panels didn't make it either. Still made me laugh though.

post #3904 of 10455

I am getting increasingly pessimistic.  I really don't feel like Republican's have a need to like their candidate this time.  It's enough that he's not Obama.

 

There will be enough people on the fence willing to blame Obama for the economy, that it will tip for Romney.

 

There is also strong evidence that the Eurozone economy is going to implode, and the shockwaves will be felt over here.  Again, Obama will take blame, even though that has nothing at all to do with him.

 

Other negative talking points?  Libya is a mess post-intervention, and McCain is starting in with the 'Obama is weak on Syria' line.  I don't know if the GOP proper is going to run with that.

post #3905 of 10455

Obama gave a great speech in Cleveland today.  Did anybody watch?  I just watched it on youtube and loved it.  There was only one part I didn't like -- where he talked about how few regulations he'd passed.  I understand why he has to do that, but it feels like buying into the GOP's narrative.  But other than that, I loved it.  Huge emphasis on science, education, shared purpose.  Recommend.   

post #3906 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Other negative talking points?  Libya is a mess post-intervention, and McCain is starting in with the 'Obama is weak on Syria' line.  I don't know if the GOP proper is going to run with that.

Who the hell told those people they could have a civil war without Uncle Sam's involvement? Also, we're for small, unobtrusive gov'mint!
post #3907 of 10455

I kinda feel like there's too much focus on the presidential race when what liberals should be doing is focusing on the house and senate. I honestly believe that if there was a legitimately overwhelming left-wing presence in the legislative branch (my understanding is that the "blue dogs" were culled pretty heavily last time around, but I don't know) it wouldn't actually matter that much who was president. Romney's pretty centrist; as terrible as he would be as commander-in-chief, I don't see him being a unilateral "decider" like Bush, and we know he can be left on social issues. If the house and senate tied his hands or kept pushing things to the left, things would probably be OK. I'm leery of the GOP having any control again, obviously, but the Bush years have primed everyone to think of the president as Almighty God-King of America, and it doesn't have to be that way.

post #3908 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

I kinda feel like there's too much focus on the presidential race when what liberals should be doing is focusing on the house and senate. I honestly believe that if there was a legitimately overwhelming left-wing presence in the legislative branch (my understanding is that the "blue dogs" were culled pretty heavily last time around, but I don't know) it wouldn't actually matter that much who was president. Romney's pretty centrist; as terrible as he would be as commander-in-chief, I don't see him being a unilateral "decider" like Bush, and we know he can be left on social issues. If the house and senate tied his hands or kept pushing things to the left, things would probably be OK. I'm leery of the GOP having any control again, obviously, but the Bush years have primed everyone to think of the president as Almighty God-King of America, and it doesn't have to be that way.

I agree with this to an extent. The Dems aren't as ruthless as the Repubs and wouldn't bring the govt to a standstill like they do. That said, people on the left don't understand the importance of regional and congressional offices the way the right does, to our peril. But I also think Romney will be way more radical than he's ever been just because of the sheer volume of money calling the shots these days.
post #3909 of 10455

on tonight's Daily Show, Jon did a piece about the Jamie Dimon's Senate testimony

 

http://gawker.com/5918618/jon-stewart-examines-the-silliness-of-jamie-dimons-senate-testimony

 

the last line summed up the GOP perfectly

 

"it must be nice to be a Republican senator sometimes because you get the fun of breaking shit and the joy of complaining that the shit you just broke doesn't work."
 

post #3910 of 10455

try and comprehend the scale of this financial Cthulhu that's been unleashed.....

 

adelson_family_0.png

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/charts-sheldon-adelson-super-pac-money

post #3911 of 10455

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232923-obama-makes-election-year-change-in-immigration-policy

 

 

Quote:
President Obama will sign an executive order Friday to significantly alter U.S. immigration policy to reduce deportations of illegal immigrants who came to the country at a young age.
post #3912 of 10455

I wonder how Obama's change in immigration policy will play.  Hispanics may be able to turn the tide for him in Arizona and Nevada (not Florida; Cubans hate illegals that aren't Cubans), and it will certainly force Romney to the right.  But do Hispanics vote in reliable numbers? 

 

This will certainly step up Republican efforts to clamp down on voting to "weed out the illegals" that will surely come out of the woodwork to vote for Obama.  I still don't know how the race baiting that will inevitably ensue play with independent "moderate" voters (i.e., the idiots in this country who are still undecided).

post #3913 of 10455

I thought it was generally agreed that Hispanics were a crucial voting bloc this time around.
 

post #3914 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

I thought it was generally agreed that Hispanics were a crucial voting bloc this time around.
 

 

It is, and clearly this is a play for that bloc.  I'm just wondering if Obama's move is more of a "let's do this and hope that Hispanics come out and vote" (much like his efforts in 2008 to get out the youth vote, which had some success but not the overwhelming success that pundits predicted).  I was under the impression that, as a group, Hispanics don't vote in numbers as large as they otherwise could.

 

For instance: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/04/26/the-latino-electorate-in-2010-more-voters-more-non-voters/

 

Quote:
Yet, even among eligible voters, Latino participation rates have lagged behind that of other groups in recent elections. In 2010, 31.2% of Latino eligible voters say they voted, while nearly half (48.6%) of white eligible voters and 44.0% of black eligible voters said the same. This gap in participation—17.4 percentage points between Latinos and whites—has persisted in recent midterm election years, though it is down from a record 19.3 percentage points in 2006. A similar gap in voter turnout rates between Latinos and whites exists in presidential election years as well (Lopez and Taylor, 2009).
post #3915 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

I thought it was generally agreed that Hispanics were a crucial voting bloc this time around.
 

 

They are, and are among the most conservative and Christian blocs there are.  Which should play right into the Republicans' hand, except that they are so mired in pandering to the xenophobic tendencies of their existing base.   As a purely political maneuver, this is a very shrewd counter to any race-baiting tactics the right might employ to whip up the base.  Immigration is a tricky topic for the GOP to navigate, since their dogwhistles are much more obvious and potentially inflammatory in that context.  A really smooth operator, someone naturally charismatic with a gift for oratory (an Obama, essentially), could potentially dance around the topic without alienating either of the blocs they need to win in the process.  I'd say that the Obama campaign has sized up Mittens and decided he's not that guy.

post #3916 of 10455

From that Rolling Stone article on Obama's campaign machine I linked to back in March:

 

 

Quote:

I ask [Jim Messina] where he sees targets of opportunity in the electorate. "I'm absolutely obsessed with Latino voters," he says.

 

Getting those votes is far from a sure thing. Obama not only failed to secure the comprehensive immigration reform he promised to pass in his first year, he has actually deported almost twice as many illegal immigrants as George W. Bush did in his first term. Yet reaching Latino voters is hard-wired into Obama 2012: All major communications go out in both Spanish and English, and the national political director is Katherine Archuleta, the first Latina to hold that job in a major presidential campaign.

 

The opportunity Messina sees with Latino voters is twofold. First, the population is booming: The number of Latinos voting in 2012 is expected to jump by 25 percent over 2008. Second, Mitt Romney has chosen to prove his right-wing credentials by outflanking the entire GOP field with extremist positions on issues dear to the Latino community, embracing Arizona's racist immigration law as a "model" for the country and spouting the language of "self-deportation" used by hard-line anti-immigrant activists. "Romney's position on immigration reform is to the right of every major Republican nominee of our lifetime," Messina says. "That's going to be a real problem for him to come back to the middle with those voters."

 

In 2008, Obama won 66 percent of the Latino vote. In a head-to-head race, current polling shows him beating Romney by a staggering 70 to 14 percent. Courting Latino voters could be key not only in tossup states like Nevada or the campaign's top new target, Arizona, but also in Midwestern states like Ohio, where immigrants have made inroads in recent years. "It's not a huge population in Ohio," says Figueroa, who guided the campaign's Hispanic outreach in 2008. "It's three percent – but, shit, that's the difference. Have you heard of Romney or Santorum doing anything in Ohio with Hispanics?"

post #3917 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

 

They are, and are among the most conservative and Christian blocs there are.  Which should play right into the Republicans' hand, except that they are so mired in pandering to the xenophobic tendencies of their existing base.   As a purely political maneuver, this is a very shrewd counter to any race-baiting tactics the right might employ to whip up the base.  Immigration is a tricky topic for the GOP to navigate, since their dogwhistles are much more obvious and potentially inflammatory in that context.  A really smooth operator, someone naturally charismatic with a gift for oratory (an Obama, essentially), could potentially dance around the topic without alienating either of the blocs they need to win in the process.  I'd say that the Obama campaign has sized up Mittens and decided he's not that guy.

 

The same thing goes with Muslims who are as a whole very conservative on social issues.   If the GOP didn't spend the last decade or so declaring war on their faith, they'd be as dependable as the Christian Evangelical Bloc.

post #3918 of 10455

But.  But.  All of those people are brown!

post #3919 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

on tonight's Daily Show, Jon did a piece about the Jamie Dimon's Senate testimony

 

http://gawker.com/5918618/jon-stewart-examines-the-silliness-of-jamie-dimons-senate-testimony

 

the last line summed up the GOP perfectly

 

"it must be nice to be a Republican senator sometimes because you get the fun of breaking shit and the joy of complaining that the shit you just broke doesn't work."
 

 

It was a good report but only really scratched the surface of this debacle.  What I thought was great was Aasif Mandvi's piece on Simplot in Idaho.  I thought that was brilliant. 

 

ETA:  This shows  how ripe for lambasting the Jamie Dimon debacle was. 


Edited by yt - 6/15/12 at 3:19pm
post #3920 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

 

It was a good report but only really scratched the surface of this debacle.  What I thought was great was Aasif Mandvi's piece on Simplot in Idaho.  I thought that was brilliant. 

 

ETA:  This shows  how ripe for lambasting the Jamie Dimon debacle was. 

Can always rely on Taibbi but I really worry that his reporting is just preaching to the choir and/or is being lost to the wind. Is anyone really reading Rolling Stone anymore?

 

about the hearing....the way the Republicans were sucking Dimon's dick was fucking pitiful. They actually asked him how he would 'fix' the economy....??? WTF!

 

On a related note, I think what might be worse....I wonder how many voters in this country could name their congressional represntative?  I wouldn't be surprised if  9 out of 10 voters in this country couldn't tell you the names of their representatives in congress. 

 

oh, and the Mandvi piece was well done but it's really sad that so many small local economies are beholden to large corporations....

post #3921 of 10455

Should we start a countdown for Snaieke's return to the forum? I'm pretty sure this all spells doom for Obama, after all.

post #3922 of 10455

nice interview about the "Dark Money" that's flowing into our political system...

 

Quote:

Monika Bauerlein & Clara Jeffery Talk Dark Money with Bill Moyers

 

Bill Moyers invited us to come on his show this week to chat about dark money, the undisclosed, often untraceable political spending made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In a wide-ranging (and incredibly gracious) interview, he asked us about everything from the latest super-PAC machinations to the nexus between political money and income inequality.

post #3923 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

nice interview about the "Dark Money" that's flowing into our political system...

Quote:

Monika Bauerlein & Clara Jeffery Talk Dark Money with Bill Moyers

 

Bill Moyers invited us to come on his show this week to chat about dark money, the undisclosed, often untraceable political spending made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In a wide-ranging (and incredibly gracious) interview, he asked us about everything from the latest super-PAC machinations to the nexus between political money and income inequality.

 

 

I watched this last night, fantastic show.  The money moving around this election cycle is really unchartered territory, at least in the last century.  They mentioned a massive ad buy in Wisconsin on the eve of the Scott Walker recall vote, and the basic message of it was "i didn't vote for Scott Walker but don't agree with the recall therefore I'm voting for Scott Walker now, let him finish his term."  The reporters from Mother Jones investigated as far as they could, through a post office box in Wisconsin to a post office box in Virginia, but never got to the bottom of who was behind this massive buy.  Creepy, dark stuff, and this is just the tip of the ice berg.

post #3924 of 10455

That's why I'm so pessimistic.  The rules we're used to are out the window, and the GOP's backers have the new, shady-funding, mechanism dialed in.

post #3925 of 10455

Maybe Warren Buffett will feel particularly generous come this fall.  

post #3926 of 10455

9.jpg

 

  I saw this on facebook and the first thing that came to mind was that mandatory drug testing would violate ones Fourth Amendment rights. Also since Romney wants more tax cuts for the rich, he won't deliver a balanced budget. Finally, I bet Bin Laden wishes Obama was never President too. What else do people who "like" this pic agree with Bin Laden about?

post #3927 of 10455

That FB thing sums of the con job of the corporate elite & GOP and the magical thinking it engenders in rank & file right wingers.  This fixation on welfare queens when corporations get vastly more welfare from taxpayers is their true triumph, but they also get points for trampling the Constitution while believing wholeheartedly that they want Constitutional government.  It's a miracle of propaganda.

post #3928 of 10455

Imma just quote this:

Quote:
Mitt Romney visited Pennsylvania chain Wawa and ordered a sandwich, and it BLEW HIS MOTHERFUCKIN' MIND.

 

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2012/06/18/mitt-romney-learns-about-touch-screen-technology

post #3929 of 10455

Shades of George Bush Sr! It's the 90's all over again.

 

But it's nice to see Romney bonding with his people...the scanner I mean.


Edited by Cylon Baby - 6/20/12 at 4:29pm
post #3930 of 10455

So the new Bloomberg poll has Obama up by double digits over Romney. So we got that going for us, which is nice...

post #3931 of 10455

Romney's own sons tell Conan that they aren't wild about their dad running for President:

 

http://teamcoco.com/video/romney-brothers-campaign

post #3932 of 10455

Meanwhile Romney is now raising more money than Obama....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-campaign-sees-red-may-money-totals-221222396.html

post #3933 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post

Romney's own sons tell Conan that they aren't wild about their dad running for President:

 

http://teamcoco.com/video/romney-brothers-campaign


Well they are speaking as human beings here....hell would you want your family to get worked over by 100's of journalists, many of whom will hate you based on your politics?

post #3934 of 10455
post #3935 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Meanwhile Romney is now raising more money than Obama....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-campaign-sees-red-may-money-totals-221222396.html

 

This is a snapshot of our future, courtesy of 30 years of deregulation and the final coup de grace of Citizens United.  The money will pull whomever it wants to the top of the heap and will buy enough advertising to totally remake him as something the people want.  It's all pretty chilling. 

post #3936 of 10455
Quote:

Originally posted by Chaz

 

It looks like Ron Paul isn't the straight shooter he claims to be.

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/20/ron-paul-receives-social-security-checks-says-its-ok-for-him-but-bad-for-everyone-else-video/

 

In the interview he said that his goal would be to preserve social security for those that paid into it (with the money saved by ending our wars and world empire). He's never said that those in the system are wrong to collect what's coming to them, just that he'd like to allow the younger generation the chance he never had to opt-out. Regardless of what you think of his stance, it's not hypocritical for him to get back at least some of the money that was involuntarily extracted from him over the years.

 

The full interview in question:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHoIIT9yUbU


Edited by Barry Woodward - 6/21/12 at 8:52am
post #3937 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

In the interview he said that his goal would be to preserve social security for those that paid into it (by ending our wars and world empire). He's never said that those in the system are wrong to collect what's coming to them, just that he'd like to allow the younger generation the chance he never had to opt-out. Now whether you think his plan would be disastrous or not, it's not hypocritical for him to get back at least some of the money that was involuntarily extracted from him over the years.

 

The full interview in question:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHoIIT9yUbU


You have to admit that it is kinda hilarious seeing people bending over backwards to defend Paul on this one while 5 months ago they were screaming "Well Warren Buffet should just write a check to the IRS then!!!@@#!!!!"

 

I would always just ask those folks if they take advantage of our unconstitutional tax code by investing in their 401k at work.

post #3938 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

In the interview he said that his goal would be to preserve social security for those that paid into it (by ending our wars and world empire). He's never said that those in the system are wrong to collect what's coming to them, just that he'd like to allow the younger generation the chance he never had to opt-out. Now whether you think his plan would be disastrous or not, it's not hypocritical for him to get back at least some of the money that was involuntarily extracted from him over the years.

 

The full interview in question:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHoIIT9yUbU

 

thingpalmer_400.png

 

You gotta be fucking kidding...

post #3939 of 10455
His plan would be disastrous. And it's hypocritical of him to try to ride a moral high horse on foreign policy while attempting to condemn his fellow seniors to homelessness. And yes, it's hypocritical of him to insist that his contempt for paying his fair share has anything to do with the Constitution when that document explicitly and in plain English grants Congress the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the country. We're not yet a country that treats its elderly like their lives are disposable, no thanks to people like Ron Paul.
Edited by Reasor - 6/21/12 at 8:59am
post #3940 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

 

He's never said that those in the system are wrong to collect what's coming to them, just that he'd like to allow the younger generation the chance he never had to opt-out.

 

 

Hahaha. 

"Ron Paul died on the cross of Social Security so that our Social Security sins may be forgiven!"

post #3941 of 10455

My hypothesis that Barry is a Ron Paul djinn, summoned by any mention of his name to come to his defense, continues to accumulate evidence. I have a theory that tricking him into saying Paul's name backwards banishes him back to the Fifth Dimension for a time.

post #3942 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

nice interview about the "Dark Money" that's flowing into our political system...

 

Quote:

Monika Bauerlein & Clara Jeffery Talk Dark Money with Bill Moyers

 

Bill Moyers invited us to come on his show this week to chat about dark money, the undisclosed, often untraceable political spending made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In a wide-ranging (and incredibly gracious) interview, he asked us about everything from the latest super-PAC machinations to the nexus between political

 

The first half of this show was equally stark, with What's the Matter with Kansas? and Pity the Billionaire author Thomas Frank, who doesn't pull punches.  I recommend this interview for anyone who hasn't watched it yet.  After Tom drills down to the depressing historical facts, Bill puts him on the spot about what people can do about it and he gives a really great answer.  Recommend. Link

post #3943 of 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

The first half of this show was equally stark, with What's the Matter with Kansas? and Pity the Billionaire author Thomas Frank, who doesn't pull punches.  I recommend this interview for anyone who hasn't watched it yet.  After Tom drills down to the depressing historical facts, Bill puts him on the spot about what people can do about it and he gives a really great answer.  Recommend. Link

 

well that was kinda depressing....enlightening, but depressing.

There was one thing that caught my attention. When Frank mentioned how important the labor movement was....

 

And the reason why this caught my attention....channel surfing earlier today, I saw that "The Shock Doctrine" documentary was on the Sundance channel. I decided to watch it again. Being reminded of all the shit that the Bush admin. did/didn't do regarding Iraq, the economy, etc. just REALLY pissed me off all over again....

 

But the one thing that Naomi Klein mentioned in the docu. that is related to what Frank said was this....specifically about the labor movement around the time of the great depression.

 

To paraphrase-  "in 1937, a pivotal year for the New Deal, do you how many labor strikes occurred in the US:  4,740 strikes lasting on average 20 days.

Now, do you know how many strikes happened in 2007 :  21

 

....and if you don't think that this is one of the main reasons, if not THE reason the GOP/conservatives want to destroy organized labor, well.....

 

 

FYI- here's an online  link to "The Shock Doctrine" I found.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW1SHPgUAQ&feature=related

post #3944 of 10455

VTran, that's what caught my attention as well.  Nobody talks about the Labor movement anymore except Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Colbert and Senator Bernie Sanders.  Even Bill Maher knocked unions the other night, and Jon Stewart takes condescending potshots at them whenever possible.  The 40-year sustained war on unions has worked, both in decimating the movement itself and destroying its relevance and image.  Yet it's vital to fighting the plutocracy Thomas Frank was talking about.   Unions were partly responsible for creating the middle class that brought five decades of economic growth to this country, and now they're almost gone.  It is depressing, but I also liked that Tom wasn't so quick to buy the line that unions suffered a crushing defeat in Wisconsin.  I don't think they did either -- I think they scratched the surface of what's possible.

post #3945 of 10455

yt,

 

I am 100% behind the idea of labor unions and feel that they have been one of the bulwarks against the US becoming a full blown 3rd world country with slave wage labor.

That being said, it would be naive to not mention that in some cases, the unions have been their own worst enemy.  There has been instances of union management  and big business colluding together in addition to just plan stupid political/managerial decisions.

 

For example, an ex-GF was a elementary school teacher and I heard many stories regarding teachers that were horrible at their jobs- teachers losing it and yelling at kids, sick time abuses, older teachers with physical problems that would prevent them from handling unruly kids.....basically, there are some people that shouldn't be teaching kids...IMO

 

Now in most of the instances I mentioned, the teachers had tenure (of one kind or another) and despite the management at the schools being aware of the problems, nothing was done due to the teacher's union being so powerful. The hoops that a school had to jump through in order to remove a bad teacher was Everest sized.  The union had the teachers back regardless of whether or not the teacher was bad.

 

So, at least in cases similar to this,  I can see how the unions fuck themselves in the eyes of the public. I think that unions are still  incredibly important to US society but they definitely need to be able to be aware and correct some of the problems that exist within their organizations. 

post #3946 of 10455

Well, unions are democratic institutions and their rules and practices can be changed by the members.  At my various workplaces I have seen people fail upwards more times than I can count, even when everyone but the boss knows the person rising is incompetent and undeserving, but I never hear that corporations are their own worst enemy for these kinds of practices.  And, unlike unions, if the employees wanted to change that practice, they'd be out of luck, because corporations aren't democracies like unions; they're dictatorships.

 

On the subject of not being able to fire teachers, I had a similar situation at my kids' school when a bunch of parents got together to protest one of my son's teachers.  I liked her a lot.  She was one of the few teachers at the school who took it upon themselves to get all the kids a membership to the Museum of Contemporary Art.  But a bunch of parents wrote letters and petitioned the principal and she was gone.  So, my experience was different.  There are always two sides to every story.  When someone gets fired at a corporation, or gets kept on at a corporation, it's the decision of the boss, no one else.  If teachers did not have a union to protect them, who would fire them?  The Principal? (I have a much lower opinion of public school administrators than I do of teachers)  The parents?  (I have seen some of the best people and the worst at my kids' schools). 

 

I think this image of unfireable teachers has a seed of truth, but as usual where the Chamber of Commerce et al are concerned, the flaws become the whole story.  Unfireable teachers is the whole story but after going through public schools myself and having my kids go through them, I have a much different view of public school teachers and teachers unions. 

post #3947 of 10455

Yeah, the stories of unfireable teachers are most definitely a very small minority when comes to the actual number of teachers employed but those are the stories that get brought up and remembered by the public.

I also agree with you regarding school administrators....some are OK but many have crossed over into tin-pot dictator mode and love to lord over the teachers.

 

If anything, one of the biggest problems (based on info from the ex-gf) is lack of parental involvement. The ex taught pre-school at a public school in a lower income bracket area...it was really  sad and incredibly angering seeing the willful lack of parental participation. In many cases, the pre-school classes were looked on as nothing more than free daycare. 

 

I also went to public schools and I think I got a fairly good education although the schools were different (better?) back all those years ago.

post #3948 of 10455

In America, when systems work (ie, good education, good teachers) people think it's all about themselves. When things don't work, it's the teachers fault and they hold up the few bad teachers as an excuse to demonize them all. 

Bad apples stand out. Good ones get eaten alive, ignored, or worse (lumped into the bad bushel). 

post #3949 of 10455

I thought this was amusing...from last night's Real Time w/Bill Maher

 

Maher: Conservatism is not an ideology, ‘It’s just about being a dick’

 

video at link
 

post #3950 of 10455

Here's the latest chatter on Romney's potential running mate:

 

Definitely being vetted:  Paul Ryan (confirmed by Robert Costa at National Review), Marco Rubio (confirmed by Romney)

 

Almost definitely being vetted:  Rob Portman, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty (who says he told Romney to look elsewhere)

 

Probably being vetted:   John Thune, Kelly Ayotte, Chris Christie

 

Possibly, but not likely, being vetted:  Condi Rice, Jon Kyl

 

Definitely not being vetted:  Bob McDonnell (confirmed by McDonnell), Rick Santorum (confirmed he hasn't spoken to anyone on the Romney team since shortly after dropping out), Jeb Bush (who made his lack of interest clear and then criticized the right wing), Mitch Daniels (who will be Purdue's new president)

 

My money would be on Portman or Jindal.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread