PDA

View Full Version : Is The War On Drugs Working?



Gayle in MD
09-13-2010, 11:58 AM
Did Prohibition work?


Do we want to fuel the illegal Mexican invasion, and support cut throat cartel? Now all Mexican and Latino Americans are not involved in drugs, but how about all the gangs, uh oh, didn't Laura get rid of those gangs????

Hmmmm, never heard about why she just dropped that one. but our kids don't use drugs, anyway, they "Just Say NO!" Right?

Wow, how fast could we pay off the deficit, if MJ was legalized.


I'd like to know how much laudered Pharmaceutical money, and "church" money, goes out to thwart legalizing MJ.

In fact, how many wealthy parishoners, make deals with the top priests and reverends, with a wink?

These, ah, "church" contributions, are a perfect hidden, tax free highway, for political pay off money....

No wonder they lie like kings!

G.

pooltchr
09-13-2010, 12:36 PM
I would say that the war on drugs is probably about as effective as Jimmy Carter's war on poverty.

But you actually raise a valid point. If we are going to allow alcohol sales to be legal (and taxed), I see no reason not to do the same with pot.

Steve

eg8r
09-13-2010, 12:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm, never heard about why she just dropped that one. but our kids don't use drugs, anyway, they "Just Say NO!" Right?
</div></div>Wow, you can't get your kids to say NO to anything. I guess you want to take the same approach as you do sex...Go ahead and buy your kids a bunch of drugs and put them next to the condoms. Your kids won't abuse it will they...

eg8r

eg8r
09-13-2010, 12:52 PM
Why stop at pot?

eg8r

Deeman3
09-13-2010, 02:11 PM
The war on drugs is not working. No one has any difficulty in getting drugs of any sort at any time.

I say, free health care, now free drugs. After all, both are human rights issues, right?

We have allowed the almost complete destruction of the public scholl systems through this liberal permissiveness. We might as well go for the whole nine yards and allow everyone everything at any time and place. After all, why should only rich folks have access to legal drugs just because they can afford the air fare to Amsterdam? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

That, along with Gayle's and Obama's 100% death tax should kill the very last incentive to do anything productive in your life. After all, why should my kids benefit from my accumulated wealth after my death. In fact, why wait? Why should my kids get any advantage form my hard work at all, at any time. Oh! That's what redistribution of earned income is all about anyway. My Bad!

At least Gayle's boat will go to a good home. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
09-13-2010, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The war on drugs is not working. No one has any difficulty in getting drugs of any sort at any time.

I say, free health care, now free drugs. After all, both are human rights issues, right?

We have allowed the almost complete destruction of the public scholl systems through this liberal permissiveness. We might as well go for the whole nine yards and allow everyone everything at any time and place. After all, why should only rich folks have access to legal drugs just because they can afford the air fare to Amsterdam? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

That, along with Gayle's and Obama's 100% death tax should kill the very last incentive to do anything productive in your life. After all, why should my kids benefit from my accumulated wealth after my death. In fact, why wait? Why should my kids get any advantage form my hard work at all, at any time. Oh! That's what redistribution of earned income is all about anyway. My Bad!

At least Gayle's boat will go to a good home. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

</div></div>

LOL, the 100% was a joke...not as good as your posts, though. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I hope you don't get attacked for bringing up so many different issues, in a thread about the drug war. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Deeman3
09-13-2010, 03:13 PM
Gayle,

I do appreciate the challenges Obama faces. Here the unions, the special interest Unions as well as the Congress are being critiqued by Newsweek, usually a liberal stronghold for the left.

It must be tough to take on them at the cost to education!



For more than 40 years, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the third-ranking member of the House, has been a fiery and highly effective legislator. Any history of how the country avoided another depression must include Obey, who shepherded the $787 billion Recovery Act through Congress last year with great skill (and no earmarks). He has been an inspiring antiwar liberal dating back to Vietnam and a rare man of conscience in Washington.

But Obey, who is retiring at the end of the year, is in danger of going out as a water carrier for the teachers’ unions—the man who gutted President Obama’s signature program on education, Race to the Top.


At issue is a $10 billion bill (down from $23 billion) to help states prevent devastating teacher layoffs. (The House approved the bill after this column was written on Thursday.) Without the money, we’ll see larger class size, four-day school weeks in more areas, and about 100,000 lost jobs, which in turn will strain services and harm the economy. As if the politics weren’t byzantine enough, the anti-layoff money has been attached to a bill funding the war in Afghanistan. This was meant to make it easier to win the support of war supporters, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now has to deal with House liberals who like the money for teachers, but not for the war.

House Democrats generally favor the bill (Republicans almost unanimously oppose it; they’re apparently oblivious to layoffs in their districts), but the Blue Dog conservative Democrats necessary for passage want what in Washington are called “pay-fors” or “offsets.” In other words, they insist that the bill not add to the deficit, which is suddenly the sexy issue in town.

Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, holds the purse strings, and this week he announced his plan for offsets. He cut from a wide range of agencies to find the $10 billion, including the departments of agriculture, energy, and commerce; the EPA; and the Army Corps of Engineers (though as a good liberal, he angrily fended off a White House proposal to trim food stamps, which has become a gargantuan program).

Obey couldn’t exclude the Department of Education from the budget knife, but he chose the wrong places to cut: $500 million from Race to the Top, $100 million from the charter-schools expansion, and $200 million from the teacher incentive fund. In other words, he’s slashing the president’s innovative programs instead of taking on more entrenched interest groups defending their slice of the pie in other parts of the government. These are the folks with “strong interests and weak claims”—much weaker on the merits than the education reformers who have already been successful in driving major accountability improvements. (On Thursday, the White House threatened to veto the House version of the bill over the issue.)


Education Secretary Arne Duncan didn’t help matters when he submitted alternative “cuts” in his department that weren’t truly cuts—they didn’t pass muster with the Congressional Budget Office, the official referee that determines whether various budget decisions actually reduce the deficit. Now Duncan is poised to introduce other cuts, still unspecified.

Meanwhile, Obey’s education cuts would undermine the reform agenda that Obama told me (in an interview for my book The Promise) is one of his “proudest achievements.” For Race to the Top, where states compete for federal grants based on how much accountability they introduce into the system (which has already leveraged impressive reform without any money at all), it would mean that states that have already submitted applications assuming certain funding levels would be eligible for $2.9 billion instead of $3.4 billion.

In January 2009 Obey already reduced Obama’s early reform proposal from $15 billion to $5 billion. That was out of $100 billion in the stimulus bill for education, most of which went to prevent state and local teacher layoffs last year. To simplify the math, Obey wants to cut from the terrific 5 percent of education spending devoted to exciting reform proposals, not the 95 percent that went for other things.

“We’re very concerned,” says Peter Cunningham, Duncan’s spokesman. “We think it’s a big mistake. These are the wrong offsets.” The president is said to be disappointed in Obey’s plan and prepared to cut other education programs to pay for the anti-layoff plan.

Obey was in high dudgeon when I spoke with him Wednesday night. “I know some of the ed guys are bitching, but who the hell do they think put it [reform money] in the budget in the first place?” he asked. Even so, Obey made it clear he’s no fan of Race to the Top, which he called “walking-around money,” “a luxury,” and, before backing off, even echoed the teachers’ unions description of it as a “slush fund.”

“Obama may be a miracle man, but he can’t change the money [realities],” Obey said, his voice rising. “They better recognize who their friends are because so far they aren’t! Who has taken more bullets and received less gratitude? Why the hell do you think I’m quitting?” (Obey recently announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection, after 41 years in the House.)

It may all be moot anyway. The effort to stop layoffs isn’t going anywhere in the Senate. “They can’t pass a two-car funeral over there,” Obey said. “Anyone who thinks we’re gonna get a single Republican vote is smoking something illegal.” He put the odds of Congress providing money to state and local governments to prevent teacher layoffs at one in 10.

The best way to improve those odds would be to tie the money for teachers to reform of the seniority system. This is something that would get the attention of Republican senators like Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Lindsey Graham. But after taking on the teachers’ unions with Race to the Top, Obama has decided to go easy on the unions when it comes to challenging seniority rules.

How disappointing. Rigid “last hired, first fired” rules are a disaster for schoolchildren. They mean that across the country, teachers of the year will be pink-slipped simply because they are young. Yep—some of our very best teachers will be driven out of the profession. Meanwhile, older, incompetent teachers will be kept on. That’s unconscionable. We now know that having a bad teacher two or three years in a row in the early grades all but dooms disadvantaged children.

With a little imagination, there’s a grand compromise available: money to prevent layoffs in exchange for a requirement that seniority no longer be the only factor in determining layoffs (it could continue to be one of four or five factors). But according to an administration source, this was apparently considered and rejected by the president without any serious effort to determine if it could win enough Republican votes in the Senate. (White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel disputes this account.) It would take action to change collective bargaining agreements in some state legislatures, but this was true of portions of Race to the Top and proved to be a surmountable barrier.

The brutal truth is that teachers’ unions don’t care much about protecting young, great teachers (often union members, but less influential ones) who will get laid off soon. Instead, the unions and their lackeys in Congress and state legislatures will go down fighting for older teachers, even if they’re lemons of the year.

By the way, this is a perversion of the American labor movement. Who went to the union barricades in the mid-20th century chanting “Last hired! First fired!”? No one. Seniority systems might make some sense on assembly lines, but have no place in education.

But Obama and the Democratic Congress have apparently decided that an election year is the wrong time to continue their historic and highly commendable challenge to the teachers’ unions.

Tackling seniority “messes up their Christmas present to the teachers’ unions,” says Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust. That present was symbolic anyway. Without a bold bid for the support of moderate Democrats and Republicans, no bill will emerge. The stranglehold of the teachers’ unions on the Democratic Party, loosened a bit with Race to the Top, is back in place, asphyxiating the careers of the terrific young teachers who the country needs most.

Jonathan Alter is also the author of The Promise: President Obama, Year One and The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.

Gayle in MD
09-13-2010, 04:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle,

I do appreciate the challenges Obama faces. Here the unions, the special interest Unions as well as the Congress are being critiqued by Newsweek, usually a liberal stronghold for the left.

It must be tough to take on them at the cost to education!



For more than 40 years, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the third-ranking member of the House, has been a fiery and highly effective legislator. Any history of how the country avoided another depression must include Obey, who shepherded the $787 billion Recovery Act through Congress last year with great skill (and no earmarks). He has been an inspiring antiwar liberal dating back to Vietnam and a rare man of conscience in Washington.

But Obey, who is retiring at the end of the year, is in danger of going out as a water carrier for the teachers’ unions—the man who gutted President Obama’s signature program on education, Race to the Top.


At issue is a $10 billion bill (down from $23 billion) to help states prevent devastating teacher layoffs. (The House approved the bill after this column was written on Thursday.) Without the money, we’ll see larger class size, four-day school weeks in more areas, and about 100,000 lost jobs, which in turn will strain services and harm the economy. As if the politics weren’t byzantine enough, the anti-layoff money has been attached to a bill funding the war in Afghanistan. This was meant to make it easier to win the support of war supporters, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now has to deal with House liberals who like the money for teachers, but not for the war.

House Democrats generally favor the bill (Republicans almost unanimously oppose it; they’re apparently oblivious to layoffs in their districts), but the Blue Dog conservative Democrats necessary for passage want what in Washington are called “pay-fors” or “offsets.” In other words, they insist that the bill not add to the deficit, which is suddenly the sexy issue in town.

Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, holds the purse strings, and this week he announced his plan for offsets. He cut from a wide range of agencies to find the $10 billion, including the departments of agriculture, energy, and commerce; the EPA; and the Army Corps of Engineers (though as a good liberal, he angrily fended off a White House proposal to trim food stamps, which has become a gargantuan program).

Obey couldn’t exclude the Department of Education from the budget knife, but he chose the wrong places to cut: $500 million from Race to the Top, $100 million from the charter-schools expansion, and $200 million from the teacher incentive fund. In other words, he’s slashing the president’s innovative programs instead of taking on more entrenched interest groups defending their slice of the pie in other parts of the government. These are the folks with “strong interests and weak claims”—much weaker on the merits than the education reformers who have already been successful in driving major accountability improvements. (On Thursday, the White House threatened to veto the House version of the bill over the issue.)


Education Secretary Arne Duncan didn’t help matters when he submitted alternative “cuts” in his department that weren’t truly cuts—they didn’t pass muster with the Congressional Budget Office, the official referee that determines whether various budget decisions actually reduce the deficit. Now Duncan is poised to introduce other cuts, still unspecified.

Meanwhile, Obey’s education cuts would undermine the reform agenda that Obama told me (in an interview for my book The Promise) is one of his “proudest achievements.” For Race to the Top, where states compete for federal grants based on how much accountability they introduce into the system (which has already leveraged impressive reform without any money at all), it would mean that states that have already submitted applications assuming certain funding levels would be eligible for $2.9 billion instead of $3.4 billion.

In January 2009 Obey already reduced Obama’s early reform proposal from $15 billion to $5 billion. That was out of $100 billion in the stimulus bill for education, most of which went to prevent state and local teacher layoffs last year. To simplify the math, Obey wants to cut from the terrific 5 percent of education spending devoted to exciting reform proposals, not the 95 percent that went for other things.

“We’re very concerned,” says Peter Cunningham, Duncan’s spokesman. “We think it’s a big mistake. These are the wrong offsets.” The president is said to be disappointed in Obey’s plan and prepared to cut other education programs to pay for the anti-layoff plan.

Obey was in high dudgeon when I spoke with him Wednesday night. “I know some of the ed guys are bitching, but who the hell do they think put it [reform money] in the budget in the first place?” he asked. Even so, Obey made it clear he’s no fan of Race to the Top, which he called “walking-around money,” “a luxury,” and, before backing off, even echoed the teachers’ unions description of it as a “slush fund.”

“Obama may be a miracle man, but he can’t change the money [realities],” Obey said, his voice rising. “They better recognize who their friends are because so far they aren’t! Who has taken more bullets and received less gratitude? Why the hell do you think I’m quitting?” (Obey recently announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection, after 41 years in the House.)

It may all be moot anyway. The effort to stop layoffs isn’t going anywhere in the Senate. “They can’t pass a two-car funeral over there,” Obey said. “Anyone who thinks we’re gonna get a single Republican vote is smoking something illegal.” He put the odds of Congress providing money to state and local governments to prevent teacher layoffs at one in 10.

The best way to improve those odds would be to tie the money for teachers to reform of the seniority system. This is something that would get the attention of Republican senators like Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Lindsey Graham. But after taking on the teachers’ unions with Race to the Top, Obama has decided to go easy on the unions when it comes to challenging seniority rules.

How disappointing. Rigid “last hired, first fired” rules are a disaster for schoolchildren. They mean that across the country, teachers of the year will be pink-slipped simply because they are young. Yep—some of our very best teachers will be driven out of the profession. Meanwhile, older, incompetent teachers will be kept on. That’s unconscionable. We now know that having a bad teacher two or three years in a row in the early grades all but dooms disadvantaged children.

With a little imagination, there’s a grand compromise available: money to prevent layoffs in exchange for a requirement that seniority no longer be the only factor in determining layoffs (it could continue to be one of four or five factors). But according to an administration source, this was apparently considered and rejected by the president without any serious effort to determine if it could win enough Republican votes in the Senate. (White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel disputes this account.) It would take action to change collective bargaining agreements in some state legislatures, but this was true of portions of Race to the Top and proved to be a surmountable barrier.

The brutal truth is that teachers’ unions don’t care much about protecting young, great teachers (often union members, but less influential ones) who will get laid off soon. Instead, the unions and their lackeys in Congress and state legislatures will go down fighting for older teachers, even if they’re lemons of the year.

By the way, this is a perversion of the American labor movement. Who went to the union barricades in the mid-20th century chanting “Last hired! First fired!”? No one. Seniority systems might make some sense on assembly lines, but have no place in education.

But Obama and the Democratic Congress have apparently decided that an election year is the wrong time to continue their historic and highly commendable challenge to the teachers’ unions.

Tackling seniority “messes up their Christmas present to the teachers’ unions,” says Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust. That present was symbolic anyway. Without a bold bid for the support of moderate Democrats and Republicans, no bill will emerge. The stranglehold of the teachers’ unions on the Democratic Party, loosened a bit with Race to the Top, is back in place, asphyxiating the careers of the terrific young teachers who the country needs most.

Jonathan Alter is also the author of The Promise: President Obama, Year One and The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.

</div></div>

I don't agree with the premise, at all. I also think that the tenure of our teachers should be considered if we must make cuts.

How come, according to the right, experience is a plus for the Presidency, but not a plus in the teaching profession.

How come they can vote for cheerleaders, but not for Harvard Law School Graduates?

Young teachers have a far better opportunity to find other work, than teachers nearing retirement, and in my experience, the older teachers are the most dedicated, and the best, anyway.

But it's of no consequence anyway, because Republicans are going to do away with public education. Why bother, so long as the top one percent is going to own and run everything, none of the rest will need any education, just line up behind the corporate CEO's, and get your whip lashing everyday.

How exciting things eill be, watching millions of Americans, go forward in a country with no federal government, at all!!!

I can't wait!


In fact, you won't have to worry about collecting your social security, or gettin any medical care either, if Republicans get back in there, because they're talking about doing away with everything!

I just can't wait for the new Newt/Palin/Limpballs/Boehner led America,... no jobs, no public education, no No Police, no firemen, no teachers, no poison or pollution oversight, and no more Representative government...just turn yourself into your friendly local pollution loving corporate fascist pig, and bend over and grab your ankles.

In fact, which language would you prefer, Japanese, Chinese or Mexican, because the RW Supreme Court, has handed our elections over to corporations who share ownership with foreign countries, so better order up some extra ammo, and some of those Rosetta Stone CD's, so you can brush up.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

Deeman3
09-14-2010, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle,
</div></div>

I don't agree with the premise, at all. I also think that the tenure of our teachers should be considered if we must make cuts.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Considered, yes, the main factor, no. If they base evaluations on all factors without undeserved protection by the union bosses, good selections could be made. </span>

How come, according to the right, experience is a plus for the Presidency, but not a plus in the teaching profession.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Don't you recall that Hillary and Biden were among the strongest critics of Obama's experience? I thought not. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Experience in all fields can be a strong indicator of ability. When protected by artificial protection rackets like tenure and making it impossible to fire really bad teachers, we have lost control over the school systems. Do you really think the changes made by the left has helped schools inthe last half century? </span>

How come they can vote for cheerleaders, but not for Harvard Law School Graduates?

<span style="color: #FF0000"> It is still a mostly free country. But who are you characterising as only a cheerleader? Do you see the repulblicans as putting forward candidated who have only been cheerleaders or are you just being dismissive, as usual, of anyone who you do not agree with? </span>

Young teachers have a far better opportunity to find other work, than teachers nearing retirement, and in my experience, the older teachers are the most dedicated, and the best, anyway.

<span style="color: #FF0000">If you focued as much on student needs as union needs, it might be a good argument. If it always about protecting teachers as it has been for decades, we will continue to produce poor students. </span>

But it's of no consequence anyway, because Republicans are going to do away with public education. Why bother, so long as the top one percent is going to own and run everything, none of the rest will need any education, just line up behind the corporate CEO's, and get your whip lashing everyday.


<span style="color: #FF0000"> This is just another partisan yelp. Some only want to improve the schools and anytime they threaten the union protection system they are trying to destroy the system. That used ot play, not now. </span>

How exciting things eill be, watching millions of Americans, go forward in a country with no federal government, at all!!!

I can't wait!

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Asking that government not grow 24% in 18 months is not unreasonable nor an attempt to get rid of it altogether. These radical statements are what are sinking the dems this election. Promised of a better future, delivery of a high cost, low yield school system and a health care system that is being speeded up in it's destruction of incentive based system to a social service that no one can afford. </span>


In fact, you won't have to worry about collecting your social security, or gettin any medical care either, if Republicans get back in there, because they're talking about doing away with everything!

<span style="color: #FF0000">No mainstream republicans are talking about this. More lies from the desperate left. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

I just can't wait for the new Newt/Palin/Limpballs/Boehner led America,... no jobs, no public education, no No Police, no firemen, no teachers, no poison or pollution oversight, and no more Representative government...just turn yourself into your friendly local pollution loving corporate fascist pig, and bend over and grab your ankles.

<span style="color: #FF0000">As usual now, no baisis in reality. None of these persons has proposed any of this. No Jobs? I think we know who is in charge there and claimed it until they failed, now reaching back and saying, "It was really, really bad! It was GWB! How could our policies have not worked? We are intellegent folks who just couuldn't see it coming. Believe us, you'll all love health care when it kicks in and costs less! </span>

In fact, which language would you prefer, Japanese, Chinese or Mexican, because the RW Supreme Court, has handed our elections over to corporations who share ownership with foreign countries, so better order up some extra ammo, and some of those Rosetta Stone CD's, so you can brush up.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #FF6666">I don't think Republicans were alone in this arena. Who has done more to propose we not have English as our official language, who has made the business climate more attractive overseas? </span>

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
09-14-2010, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle,
</div></div>

I don't agree with the premise, at all. I also think that the tenure of our teachers should be considered if we must make cuts.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Considered, yes, the main factor, no. If they base evaluations on all factors without undeserved protection by the union bosses, good selections could be made. </span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I've seen the statistics on areas with strong unions, Deeman, and the stronger the union, the better the students performance is.

The probloem in the schools began when the Mother's in this country, decided they would rather work full time, than make parenting a full time effort.

I blame parents, not teachers, and also Bush, who used the federal government, for NCLB, and then he defunded it, and crippleld the whole program....</span>

How come, according to the right, experience is a plus for the Presidency, but not a plus in the teaching profession.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Don't you recall that Hillary and Biden were among the strongest critics of Obama's experience? I thought not. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I wasn't asking about what they thought, but what you thought about my question. Getting a straight answer out of you is like pulling teeth. </span>



Experience in all fields can be a strong indicator of ability.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>You are distorting the workings of the school system. Teachers are under a testing regime, szince Bush. Testing the children is now more important, since Bush, than a teacher having the time, and money, to experience the joy of teaching.

We have a teacher on this forum. I think he would agree on that. I have alrady posted about the wonderful public school education my grand daughter is enjoying, but she also lives in a country where the vast majority of mothers, work at home, and parental involvement, is extremely high.

You continue to blame teachers, for what is a problem because of absent parents, whose main goal in life is more money, and who do not realize that you cannot do any jobs effectively, when you are not even present, for most of the time, which impacts not only the schools, but all of the other serious issues we are facing in our country.

I might add here, the kids in their neighborhood with the most emotional, and anti-social problems, are the ones who are home schooled. I realize that you righties like to blame the government for everything, including the probolems in some areas, but often those problems can be traced right back to racist attitudes which impact econoomics, and defunding of education, by Republicans..../size]



When protected by artificial protection rackets

[size:14pt]Not a good description of the school system. Nor of Unions. More harm has been done to our country because of the Republican Jjihad against Unions, than anything else, IMO. </span>



like tenure and making it impossible to fire really bad teachers,

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I've already provided you the truth about that, the massive testing highlights student performance. It is not impossible to fire bad teachers. You say these things, but they aren't true. </span>


we have lost control over the school systems. Do you really think the changes made by the left has helped schools inthe last half century? </span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The left? LMAO! Here is what I think, there have been a number of things which have negatively impacted public education, one of the most damaging, was the influx of non english speaking immigrants, which flooded across our borders at unprecedented rates, AFTER AMNESTY was offered. More illegal immigrants were added to our school system because of Republican policies, than for any other reason.

Reagan gave complete Amnesty, and Bush was all for the illegals, didn't do a thing about it, and neither has any Republican majority.

IMO, the influx of illegal immigrants has damaged our country's educational system, far more than Unions, that, and no parents involved with their children's education, or even home enough of the time, to keep a constant pressure on their local school system.

IMO, School performance, is more linked to parental and community involvement, that any other single phenomenon.

The best thing that could happen to our education system, would be if people who should never have been paarents, would stop having them, and the more we do to discourage selling this idea that it's God's will that everyone keep popping out babies they can't even feed, and don't even want, the better everything will be. If we're lucky, and the religious right doesn't stick their ignorant noses into it, all women will have access to the morning after pill, but Republicans will probably block that, if they can get awy with it.

</span>

How come they can vote for cheerleaders, but not for Harvard Law School Graduates?

<span style="color: #FF0000"> It is still a mostly free country. But who are you characterising as only a cheerleader? Do you see the repulblicans as putting forward candidated who have only been cheerleaders or are you just being dismissive, as usual, of anyone who you do not agree with? </span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'> The only thing Bush succeeded in doing with grand success, was cheerleading, lol.

You said yourself, that the candidates were so bad in the last presidential election, you weren't even going to vote! this time, they are even worse. Most of them were either a part of the famous Bush spending borrowing warring sspree, or they are total nutjobs. The Tea Party Candidates have been completely silenced, in an effort to squelch further public awareness of their radical outrageous statements. Republicans don't even know who the leader of their party is!!!!</span>

Young teachers have a far better opportunity to find other work, than teachers nearing retirement, and in my experience, the older teachers are the most dedicated, and the best, anyway.

<span style="color: #FF0000">If you focued as much on student needs as union needs, it might be a good argument. If it always about protecting teachers as it has been for decades, we will continue to produce poor students. </span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Deeman, you are trying to lay the whole cause of a very complex problem, about education, on only one possible contributing factor, if it is indeed at all a contributing factor, when there a many contributing factors.

The statistics show that the areas with the strongest teachers Unions, have the highest success in student performance.

</span>

But it's of no consequence anyway, because Republicans are going to do away with public education. Why bother, so long as the top one percent is going to own and run everything, none of the rest will need any education, just line up behind the corporate CEO's, and get your whip lashing everyday.


<span style="color: #FF0000"> This is just another partisan yelp. Some only want to improve the schools and anytime they threaten the union protection system they are trying to destroy the system. That used ot play, not now. </span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>LMAO! Hey, you folks right on here are among those who have stated that the public education system should be completely done away with.

I've heard several Republican/libertarians saying they want to do away with public education, altogether, and social Security, And Medicare.... </span>

How exciting things eill be, watching millions of Americans, go forward in a country with no federal government, at all!!!

I can't wait!

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Asking that government not grow 24% in 18 months is not unreasonable nor an attempt to get rid of it altogether. These radical statements are what are sinking the dems this election. Promised of a better future, delivery of a high cost, low yield school system and a health care system that is being speeded up in it's destruction of incentive based system to a social service that no one can afford. </span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I'd say to that that when 62% of homneowners lost their homes because of health care costs, and then we have Americans of all income levels, other than the beloved top two percetn, of course, dying because they were dropped by their health care insurance, and pharmaceuticals have had Republicans, like Bush, putting through multi-trillion dollar prescription drug programs, while blocking</span>


In fact, you won't have to worry about collecting your social security, or gettin any medical care either, if Republicans get back in there, because they're talking about doing away with everything!

<span style="color: #FF0000">No mainstream republicans are talking about this. More lies from the desperate left. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Are you saying the Tea Party Candidates are not mainstream Republicans, after you guys have been arguing with all of us for months, telling us those nutjobs are mainstream???

Rand Paul, Angle, Bachman, Gingrich, aren't mainstream? Boehner isn't mainstream? McConnell? They weren't all out in front applauding the revolution flag???

Ah hem, oh yes they were, and applauding the sexist and racist disgusting signage, I saw it.</span>

I just can't wait for the new Newt/Palin/Limpballs/Boehner led America,... no jobs, no public education, no No Police, no firemen, no teachers, no poison or pollution oversight, and no more Representative government...just turn yourself into your friendly local pollution loving corporate fascist pig, and bend over and grab your ankles.

<span style="color: #FF0000">As usual now, no baisis in reality. None of these persons has proposed any of this. No Jobs? I think we know who is in charge there and claimed it until they failed, now reaching back and saying, "It was really, really bad! It was GWB! How could our policies have not worked? We are intellegent folks who just couuldn't see it coming. Believe us, you'll all love health care when it kicks in and costs less! </span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The health care bill has a number of good things abut it. As nancy Pelosi has stated, many times, it is a start, and it will be tweaked as we go, just as all bills are.


Oh, and BTW, while we're on the subject, Did the SURGE WORK? You remember that, right, all that dying to give Iraqis "Breathing room" to compromise on their carving up the oil profits, and reconciling their differences? NONE OF THAT HAPPENED, and just as I predicted, we didn't win a damned thing in Iraq, except a huge debt, in the multi trillionns, and OPEC&lt; is still holding our entire economy hostage thanks to the Grand Oil Party, and the CHIMP!</span>

In fact, which language would you prefer, Japanese, Chinese or Mexican, because the RW Supreme Court, has handed our elections over to corporations who share ownership with foreign countries, so better order up some extra ammo, and some of those Rosetta Stone CD's, so you can brush up.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

<span style="color: #FF6666">I don't think Republicans were alone in this arena. Who has done more to propose we not have English as our official language, who has made the business climate more attractive overseas? </span>

</div></div> </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I think you shhould check out the oursourcing figures under eight years of Bush, and fourteen years of republican Majority, before you try to launch that one Dee.

Ha ha ha...G. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

sack316
09-14-2010, 09:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Wow, how fast could we pay off the deficit, if MJ was legalized.
</div></div>

I actually do kinda agree. From much of what I have studied, alcohol and tobacco are actually more dangerous and unhealthy (obviously that one is up for debate, but regardless I'd still place each in roughly the same class in terms of what we are discussing).

But one opposing point I have read before, that I found quite interesting, was that legal MJ would kill the hidden economy in poorer areas. Sounds quite odd, I know. But if ya really think about it, it's quite possible.

Sack

sack316
09-14-2010, 09:03 PM
Just wanna add, I am actually all for making it legal, labeled, and taxed. I only threw that other part out there above as an interesting side thought...

Sack

Gayle in MD
09-14-2010, 09:11 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Qtec
09-15-2010, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The war on drugs is not working. No one has any difficulty in getting drugs of any sort at any time. </div></div>

That's not the point. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why should it work for illegal drugs? It fuelled the creation of gangs, just like its doing now in Mexico. The difference today is that its a lot more money and they are better armed.

Legalisation should be discussed, its the only option.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pimp my shooter: The amazing bling guns that belong to Mexico's drug lords:

Mexican soldiers have seized an arsenal of gold-plated and diamond-encrusted weapons believed to belong to the Valencia gang, allies of the powerful Sinaloa drug cartel and, it seems, fans of hip-hip excess.

Showing just how flamboyant gang members spend much of their ill-gotten wealth, pictures show how most of the 31 'pimped' pistols found in a raid on a home in western Mexico had gold or silver-plated grips or were glittered with diamonds.

Three of the assault rifles are almost entirely gold-plated and there was even a silencer plated with gold. One particularly image-conscious gangster has made his pistol unique by adding rows of gaudy red and green jewels and a Ferrari logo. </div></div>

pimp my shooter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1272625/Mexican-soldiers-seize-gold-plated-diamond-encrusted-firearms-raid-gang.html)

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/052010/bling_guns.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/05/05/article-1272625-09705E37000005DC-188_468x286.jpg



Q

Gayle in MD
09-15-2010, 04:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The war on drugs is not working. No one has any difficulty in getting drugs of any sort at any time. </div></div>

That's not the point. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, why should it work for illegal drugs? It fuelled the creation of gangs, just like its doing now in Mexico. The difference today is that its a lot more money and they are better armed.

Legalisation should be discussed, its the only option.



Q </div></div>

Absolutely! And we know who's goig to be outraged if Democratics tried to do that very thing, the thing that would make some sense.

Seems to me a lot of "Wars" don't achieve the intended GOP results. The War On Drugs has been about as effective as Nancy's "Just Say NO!"

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just Say No!!!!! </span>

Between that mantra and Reagan's Amnesty, the Reagans were probably the Mexico drug cartels best supporters. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Little did she realize that she'd be providing the Republicans with their entire legislative/political policy, decades later, LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Hey Repubs, want to end the Bush recession quickly?

Repubs answer...

Just say no!

G.

pooltchr
09-15-2010, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Seems to me a lot of "Wars" don't achieve the intended GOP results. The War On Drugs has been about as effective as Nancy's "Just Say NO!"


G. </div></div>

And about the war on poverty that your beloved Jimmy Carter implimented oh so many years ago.
How's that one doing?????????????

You love to slam republicans at every opportunity, and can't even see or admit that your precious democrats are doing the very same things you attack the right for.

Steve