Why Can't They Figure it Out? [Archive]

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 05:59 AM

Where I live, they've been struggling mightily in the major cities to figure out why it is the public schools here are such disasters.

They've done studies, called in outside "experts," gone to the parents, and every governor and city mayor for at least the past decade and a half has called him/herself "the EDUCATION gov/mayor."

Still, our schools continue to fail. The dropout rate rises. White flight continues (these kids LIVE in the neighborhoods, but thier parents send them to private schools). Some schools have (under new laws) actually been forced to close and re-open as charter schools.

Funding for schools continues to rise. Free lunches (and breakfast) are at an all-time high despite a booming economy with virtually no unemployment. Teachers are, more and more, being required to prove expertise in their subject area, forcing out the incompetent and teacher salaries are far above the average for the area ($50k/yr, vs. just under $30k) removing any notion that "low pay" prevents the hiring of better teachers. Meanwhile, the larger districts engage in nation-wide hunts for top officials, paying them top dollar ($120-250k). So that too, simply cannot be the problem.

So what is it? The water? Cycles of the moon?

Just recently, the largest district here came out with what was taken in the media and their own circles as a surprising idea: kids who do not speak English, do not fare as well in these schools as kids who do and that since many of the schools in these districts are 75%, 80% even 90% "non-English learners" that this may--just MAY--have some impact on the testing scores that indicate how badly these schools are doing!

Whooda thunk it!?

And what language is it that thes "non-English learners" speak as their native tongue? Tagalog? Ursi? !Kunk!? Well...no, as it turns out. The language is...Spanish!

And where, one might wonder, do all these Spanish-speaking "learners" come from? Granted, this state was once, partly a part of Nueva Espana, and yes, there is a large native Hispanic (Spanish- or Mexican-American) population here and always has been. And while many of these people and their kids speak Spanish (many an archaic Castillian) their primary language is English.

So who are all these Spanish-speaking "learners"?

It seems that school and state education officials here, including governors and mayors have simply been unable to figure it out, but they HAVE, finally, come to realize that when you have schools filled with "learners" who do not speak the language of the nation in which they are um..."learning" it makes it tough for them to um...learn.

I wonder why, given the insistence that American schools are run by our nation's best and brightest, that it's taken them so long to figure out that when 70%, 80% or even 90% of a school's "learner" population is the children of illegal aliens who do not speak English, that this may present a problem.

Tokie

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

1st October 2007, 06:09 AM

Zep

1st October 2007, 07:08 AM

Dancing David

1st October 2007, 07:28 AM

Hmm, I see a rant but no data. I see a lot of assertion but no data. I see a lot of assumption but no data.

ImaginalDisc

1st October 2007, 08:03 AM

The only factor (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-4086(197602)20%3A1%3C42%3AABNOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J) that has been consistently correlated (http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/75/3/417)with academic achievement is socio-economic status. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0407(197323)46%3A4%3C480%3ASSARTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V)

Students with limited English proficiency test just as well in math and science as students in the same socio-economic brackets. You obviously can't compare the English skills of an LEP students to non-LEP students and expect to get legitimate results.

My parents were both infants when they came to this country, and neither could speak English by their first day of kindergarten. They both have university degrees and are doing well, thank you.

This nonsense you've spouted about schools recieving more funding is a joke, right? Florida, in particular, has had dwindling funding, and while the federal goverment has been passing down funding, they come with mandates on class size, teacher qualifiactions, and frequent standardized assessments (Local students are in mandated testing as much as ten days out of the year, depending on their grade level) that may wind up doing more harm than good.

If I raised your pay by a small margin, but asked you to do ten impossible things before 9 a.m. while blindfolded and juggling chainsaws, you might understand.

fuelair

1st October 2007, 08:25 AM

The only factor (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-4086(197602)20%3A1%3C42%3AABNOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J) that has been consistently correlated (http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/75/3/417)with academic achievement is socio-economic status. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0407(197323)46%3A4%3C480%3ASSARTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V)

Students with limited English proficiency test just as well in math and science as students in the same socio-economic brackets. You obviously can't compare the English skills of an LEP students to non-LEP students and expect to get legitimate results.

My parents were both infants when they came to this country, and neither could speak English by their first day of kindergarten. They both have university degrees and are doing well, thank you.

This nonsense you've spouted about schools recieving more funding is a joke, right? Florida, in particular, has had dwindling funding, and while the federal goverment has been passing down funding, they come with mandates on class size, teacher qualifiactions, and fequent standardized assessments (Local students are in mandated testing as much as ten days out of the year, depending on their grade level) that may wind up doing more harm than good.

If I raised your pay by a small margin, but asked you to do ten impossible things before 9 a.m. while blindfolded and juggling chainsaws, you might understand.
I back that up from further North (Orlando). More silliness, less actual teaching; more repetition, less technology/jobs teaching.

hubbub2

1st October 2007, 10:10 AM

Around these parts, teachers are flooding out of the state, due to low pay.

There's a lot of blame to go around when it comes to students performing poorly...Teachers, parents, school boards, and believe it or not, even the students.

And now for the off-topic...

I work retail, so...

...do ten impossible things before 9 a.m. while blindfolded and juggling chainsaws...

...piece of cake...the real problem is: What do I do for the rest of the day?:D

Fnord

1st October 2007, 10:14 AM

wuts gud reedn got ta do wit ejikashun?

hubbub2

1st October 2007, 10:37 AM

wuts gud reedn got ta do wit ejikashun?

:wackybiglaugh:

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 02:33 PM

Are you sure they didn't know this all along, but only recently made a public statement of it? Perhaps it is now so obvious to everyone that even the most politically correct are willing to acknowledge it.

~~ Paul

You may be onto something....but then again the capitol city where I live is a "sanctuary" city and the state itself is a "sactuary" state, and neither the smarmy mayor nor the new, very confused gov. will admit it.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 02:41 PM

No way! Tell me it isn't true! EVERY non-English-speaking Hispanic child who goes to a US school is an illegal alien?! :eek:

Look, I'm only guessing here, but wouldn't it be perhaps better to...how do I say this...back that up with facts? For example, have you seen the level of English capability among many of the US WASP posters on the myriad of forums out there today? Many of them can't even spell l33t or even phone-text properly, let alone parse or even write simple day-to-day English. Not to mention the incredibly common misspellings like "to", "too" and "two"; "There", "they're" and "their"; "Your and "you're"; "Lose" and "loose" (which seems to be a common misspelling here too, alas)...

The USA has a proud history of fine writers, and more are on the way. Perhaps the answers may lie in the provision and content of primary education, not necessarily in who is receiving it. Want an example of "US white kids" getting piss-poor education? Kansas...

Yor PC wayling aside, th fackt of the mater iz thet the vast majority of those in this area who do not speak English are in the country illegally. You can run around shrieking "prove the sun rises in the east!!!" all you want, and if I fail to do so you can puff out your chest and proudly proclaim yourself the winner of the debate...but the sun will continue to rise in the east, nonetheless.

Following this with the hoary tactic (pg. 2, section 1, Liberal Playbook) by implying that anyone noting the facts of this situation must needs by a flaming, xenophobic sheet-warin' redneck nightrider, is not only a very cleverly "hidden" ad hom, but reeks of guilt by association and is an enormous non sequitur. But screaming "RAAAACCCIIISTTTTTTTTTT!!!!" at anyone who dares point up the truth in this sichiashun, is laughably predictable of people on yor siyde of this deebayt

Mayhaps that is where the next fine writers will come from...what this has to do with anything in my post, I cannot say. And while I am sure many fine, upstanding additions to our society will come out of the illegal population, in the meantime, schools in places like where I live, are falling apart and those who have an actual right to be there are getting a(n even more) sub-standard education because of the overwhelming presence of these people.

Yes. I said "these people." I must be a RAAAACCCIIIISSTTTTTTTTTT!!!

Tokie

fuelair

1st October 2007, 03:19 PM

wuts gud reedn got ta do wit ejikashun?
I actually once saw a principal say essentially that ( except the accent part) to a group of teachers I was with ("I don't understand all this stuff about reading - I don't like reading and I'm fine with a computer!!") in Pasco County

ImaginalDisc

1st October 2007, 03:29 PM

Yor PC wayling aside, th fackt of the mater iz thet the vast majority of those in this area who do not speak English are in the country illegally.

Even assuming this is true, you still need to show that they're harming the educational system for your position to hold any water.

tracer

1st October 2007, 03:35 PM

Yor PC wayling aside, th fackt of the mater iz thet the vast majority of those in this area who do not speak English are in the country illegally.

Where is "this area"?

Zep

1st October 2007, 03:38 PM

Yor PC wayling aside, th fackt of the mater iz thet the vast majority of those in this area who do not speak English are in the country illegally. You can run around shrieking "prove the sun rises in the east!!!" all you want, and if I fail to do so you can puff out your chest and proudly proclaim yourself the winner of the debate...but the sun will continue to rise in the east, nonetheless.I'll repeat: (1) Have you facts to back that assertion up? (2) What has this to do with overall teaching efficacy and learning ability?

Following this with the hoary tactic (pg. 2, section 1, Liberal Playbook) by implying that anyone noting the facts of this situation must needs by a flaming, xenophobic sheet-warin' redneck nightrider, is not only a very cleverly "hidden" ad hom, but reeks of guilt by association and is an enormous non sequitur. But screaming "RAAAACCCIIISTTTTTTTTTT!!!!" at anyone who dares point up the truth in this sichiashun, is laughably predictable of people on yor siyde of this deebaytYou have NO idea who you are talking to, do you! :)

Mayhaps that is where the next fine writers will come from...what this has to do with anything in my post, I cannot say. And while I am sure many fine, upstanding additions to our society will come out of the illegal population, in the meantime, schools in places like where I live, are falling apart and those who have an actual right to be there are getting a(n even more) sub-standard education because of the overwhelming presence of these people.

Yes. I said "these people." I must be a RAAAACCCIIIISSTTTTTTTTTT!!!

TokieAh, here we have your REAL gripe! The "illegals" are not content with taking American jobs, they are also holding American kids back in school. Is that it, in a nutshell?

ImaginalDisc

1st October 2007, 03:38 PM

Where is "this area"?

The area where Tokenconservative's English usage is standard, 4chan.

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 04:23 PM

Hmm, I see a rant but no data. I see a lot of assertion but no data. I see a lot of assumption but no data.

Hmm...I see a response...but no thought.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 04:25 PM

Where is "this area"?

Area 51, of course!

Very clever attempt to track me down...next, I suppose you will tell me you are the daughter of a deceased Nigerian general with $4.2 million dollars in a bank in Nairobi, and that you need my help....

Tokie

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 04:40 PM

I'll repeat: (1) Have you facts to back that assertion up? (2) What has this to do with overall teaching efficacy and learning ability?

You have NO idea who you are talking to, do you! :)

Ah, here we have your REAL gripe! The "illegals" are not content with taking American jobs, they are also holding American kids back in school. Is that it, in a nutshell?

Well, you could catch me out on the "correlation is not necessarily causation" issue, but in this case, they've pretty much, over the past decade or so since standardized (state) testing has put failing schools at risk for closing, spent millions of dollars trying to figure out "why" they keep failing.

Every year, when the reports on the schools' "grades" come out, shortly after follow all sorts of "experts" telling us why the schools are failing. Following this, are more studies to figure out why the schools are failing in preparation for the "experts" telling us why the schools are failing the following year.

Now, the only thing they have not addressed so far is this. They've trotted out all the "educators'" favorites, starting with "it's the parents' fault!" (yes, to a large degree in this case) to "we need to add free BREAKFAST!!" and "childcare for the students' kids!!" and any number of other bandaid approaches, the likes of which anybody with a few years under his or her belt has seen tried and discarded a dozen times over the decades since the mid-1960s.

Finally, just recently, the light went off over somebody's head, and THIS "study" by an "expert" indicates that well...it maybe just could be that the fact that teachers teach in English but that most of their students either don't speakd that particular language at all, speak very little of it, and can read almost no English.

Given, for about 3-4 years, you cannot be hired in this school district if you are not fluent in a language other than English, but they still have to deal with all those teachers still there who speak only English (sigh...yes, I know...some may speak Tagalog or !Kung! but that is hardly the point...DO try and focus, won't you!).

I am beginning to guess I am talking to a teacher or school administrator. Should I care? Does that give you some special insight? Or does it just mean you are more biased than most?

The illegals are not purposely doing this. This, another hoary left-liberal tactic right out of the Playbook, is just another non-sequitur, bordering on an ad hom (HE's a RAAAACCIISTTTTTTT!!!!). To be sure, most of their parents would rather these kids were out earning money or finding a husband if they are girls. But our laws force them to be there until age 16, and there they are (mostly), not learning in two languages and bored out of their minds so disrupting the learning of others.

Now, if you ARE a teacher or school admin., and you do not know that this is what kids who are not doing anything else in school all day do--distrupt--it does not speak well to either your experience, your observation skills or your intellect.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 04:41 PM

The area where Tokenconservative's English usage is standard, 4chan.

Must be Oakland.

1st October 2007, 05:30 PM

Tokenconservative

1st October 2007, 05:50 PM

Federal funding might be at a high point, but state funding varies dramatically. In Ohio, the education system has faced so many cutbacks, that a large portion of what was once provided by the school is now being asked of the parents and community to volunteer. Salaries are amazingly low, so several of the teachers locally supplement their income with other jobs. Thanks to this idiotic NCLB program, gifted programs have been axed across the board, while supplemental education classes such as music, art, and P.E. have also been largely eliminated.

Several of the local public schools are now public/charter schools - meaning they can charge tuition of those who can afford it, to offset the lack of funding they're receiving from the government.

Meanwhile - amazingly - the school board is reporting higher administrative salaries, and several new schools are being built - but the old schools are being recycled, rather than being eliminated. Playgrounds are entirely by donation from the community, and much of the extra materials used - especially in Pre-K through fifth grade - are being supplied out of the teachers' and parents' pockets. But the school board is getting new computers, a new internal network for their computers, and all sorts of new programs to benefit the administration of the school board itself.

Of course, I also live in a city that's been regularly found guilty of violations of the Constitution in many regards - and which has never been punished for any of those violations. So that may be a part of it.

Interestingly enough, when the schools were reporting significant student statistics lately, they found that many children were being counted by several schools, several conflicting programs, and in some cases, even by several counties. Some other children were not being counted at all - all to adjust the demographics to make the schools appear more in-line with the intentions of NCLB. This was discovered and... nothing happened. The state government shrugged it off, and passed the false data up to Federal - who also shrugged it off, and acted like nothing happened.

If we could just remove politicians from the education system - imagine what could happen?

Community schools supported by the community was the origional idea. That was not good enough for a teachers union that was growing ever more powerful and wealthy, and they pushed to have control of the schools taken away from localities and passed to districts, states and the federal government.

If funding for schools in your area is being "cut" it's because taxpayers, most likely fed up with the lousy product, have stopped supporting the schools by regularly giving them more money. It also sounds like population-shift is impacting your schools. Were I live, they also have built several new schools, including a huge new high school though it's very clear that by about 2025 (current demographic outlook) they won't have enough kids to fill it.

This will not stop them from having a full complement of teachers or administrators, of course. At full pay.

As for head count: this is why the public schools where I live (I doubt Ohio has this problem the way we do) are out in front in the battle to allow the children of illegals to attend our "free" schools and to throw open the borders to even more of them. The more noses they count in a school, the more money the school gets, whether that nose has a right to be there or not.

Indeed, politicians were not supposed to have their filthy hands in our schools in the original model, but remember that the NEA is the single most powerful lobbying organization in the country and has been for the past 20 years or so. They dump HUGE amounts of money into the coffers of select politicos to "encourage" them to do their bidding.

Tokie

LostAngeles

1st October 2007, 06:23 PM

fuelair

1st October 2007, 06:42 PM

Tokie, I notice you completely ignored Imaginal Disc's post about how school performance correlates more strongly with socio-economic class. This has been shown by countless studies and some have shown that by bringing students from a low socio-economic class into a school with middle-class students raises the achievement level of the first group.

Would you mind addressing ID's post, please, as it provides a strong alternate explanation to your arguement?
This is not support for any side. Purely logical question based on true information in your post.

I have never seen anyone state statistics on the effect on the achievement level of the second group. Are you aware of a research result on that end of it? Is anyone here?

LostAngeles

1st October 2007, 10:25 PM

This is not support for any side. Purely logical question based on true information in your post.

I have never seen anyone state statistics on the effect on the achievement level of the second group. Are you aware of a research result on that end of it? Is anyone here?

http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1332

That should be freely available. It's the article I was thinking of and when I pull it up through the databases, the son of a bitch lists no cites.

However, I found another article by him that does list cites. If you'd like to read it for yourself:

AUTHOR: Richard D. Kahlenberg
TITLE: The New Integration
SOURCE: Educational Leadership 63 no8 22-6 My 2006

But here's the part you're asking about from the first one:

...
Will middle-class children be hurt by attending economically mixed schools? The research suggests that sprinkling a few middle-class kids into a school of highly concentrated poverty will likely hurt their academic achievement. But so long as a majority of the students are middle class (defined for these purposes as not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch), their achievement does not decline. This is true in part because the majority sets the tone in a school, and because research finds that middle-class children are less affected by school influences (for good or ill) than low-income children.
...

I also have, though:

AUTHOR: Chiu, Ming Ming; Khoo, Lawrence
TITLE: Effects of Resources, Inequality, and Privilege Bias on Achievement: Country, School, and Student Level Analyses
SOURCE: American Educational Research Journal 42 no4 575-603 Wint 2005

...

Schoolmates can also serve as a resource for one another. Students can benefit from resources made available by their friends, so governments can mitigate disparities in family wealth by mixing rich and poor students together in each school (rather than clustering rich students together in the same schools and poor students together in other schools). As a consequence of diminishing marginal returns, mixing students should benefit poorer students more than it benefits richer students (Coleman et al., 1966; Jencks et al., 1972).

...Furthermore, mixing students might provide richer students extra learning opportunities from poorer students' different experiences. Hence, mixing students might yield higher overall educational outcomes than clustering students, ceteris paribus.

...

Let me know if you want more, but if you have access to a database or your library does, that should be enough for you to find those articles at least.

Zep

1st October 2007, 10:57 PM

Well, you could catch me out on the "correlation is not necessarily causation" issue, but in this case, they've pretty much, over the past decade or so since standardized (state) testing has put failing schools at risk for closing, spent millions of dollars trying to figure out "why" they keep failing.

Every year, when the reports on the schools' "grades" come out, shortly after follow all sorts of "experts" telling us why the schools are failing. Following this, are more studies to figure out why the schools are failing in preparation for the "experts" telling us why the schools are failing the following year.

Now, the only thing they have not addressed so far is this. They've trotted out all the "educators'" favorites, starting with "it's the parents' fault!" (yes, to a large degree in this case) to "we need to add free BREAKFAST!!" and "childcare for the students' kids!!" and any number of other bandaid approaches, the likes of which anybody with a few years under his or her belt has seen tried and discarded a dozen times over the decades since the mid-1960s.

Finally, just recently, the light went off over somebody's head, and THIS "study" by an "expert" indicates that well...it maybe just could be that the fact that teachers teach in English but that most of their students either don't speakd that particular language at all, speak very little of it, and can read almost no English.

Given, for about 3-4 years, you cannot be hired in this school district if you are not fluent in a language other than English, but they still have to deal with all those teachers still there who speak only English (sigh...yes, I know...some may speak Tagalog or !Kung! but that is hardly the point...DO try and focus, won't you!).Do you always go off like this without actually addressing the questions?

I am beginning to guess I am talking to a teacher or school administrator. Should I care? Does that give you some special insight? Or does it just mean you are more biased than most?Keep guessing. Oh, and a guess is not a "fact", btw.

The illegals are not purposely doing this. This, another hoary left-liberal tactic right out of the Playbook, is just another non-sequitur, bordering on an ad hom (HE's a RAAAACCIISTTTTTTT!!!!). To be sure, most of their parents would rather these kids were out earning money or finding a husband if they are girls. But our laws force them to be there until age 16, and there they are (mostly), not learning in two languages and bored out of their minds so disrupting the learning of others.So many errors, so little content. :rolleyes: And it seems like you want to answer your own questions now; carry on your own conversation. So what was the point of you posting at all? Oh yes: to rant. Oh well. Carry on. When you are calmer we will talk some more.

Now, if you ARE a teacher or school admin., and you do not know that this is what kids who are not doing anything else in school all day do--distrupt--it does not speak well to either your experience, your observation skills or your intellect.

TokieYou REALLY don't have a clue, do you. Just mindless ranting. Incidentally, it's spelled "disrupt". You should have paid attention in spelling class... ;)

2nd October 2007, 01:16 AM

Community schools supported by the community was the origional idea. That was not good enough for a teachers union that was growing ever more powerful and wealthy, and they pushed to have control of the schools taken away from localities and passed to districts, states and the federal government.

Evidence, please?

If funding for schools in your area is being "cut" it's because taxpayers, most likely fed up with the lousy product, have stopped supporting the schools by regularly giving them more money.

Wrong. Taxpayers are still paying what they always have - it's not the taxpayers who have decided to eliminate budget for education, but the city and state themselves, often in closed meetings.

As for the 'lousy product', our schools are a lot better than most states. For one thing, we're not even trying to teach Creationism.

It also sounds like population-shift is impacting your schools. Were I live, they also have built several new schools, including a huge new high school though it's very clear that by about 2025 (current demographic outlook) they won't have enough kids to fill it.

Again, wrong. Do you ever research anything, or do you just trust in your own infallible intellect?

This will not stop them from having a full complement of teachers or administrators, of course. At full pay.

Because of course, if they were being fair about it, they'd only hire half as many teachers and dock them all 50% of their pay... ??

As for head count: this is why the public schools where I live (I doubt Ohio has this problem the way we do) are out in front in the battle to allow the children of illegals to attend our "free" schools and to throw open the borders to even more of them. The more noses they count in a school, the more money the school gets, whether that nose has a right to be there or not.

Every child has a right to education, no matter why or how he's in the country.

And as much as I'd like to see some actual evidence from you, it's pretty clear that you are a) unwilling or unable to provide evidence, and b) are a filthy racist.

Go back to Europe and quit polluting our soil.

--Z, more Chiricahua than European.

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:14 AM

Tokie, I notice you completely ignored Imaginal Disc's post about how school performance correlates more strongly with socio-economic class. This has been shown by countless studies and some have shown that by bringing students from a low socio-economic class into a school with middle-class students raises the achievement level of the first group.

Would you mind addressing ID's post, please, as it provides a strong alternate explanation to your arguement?

Sure (and no, I just didn't see it...notice somethng: when I post, I am immediately assailed by dozens of posts directed at me. I am but a single man with but two hands and the requisite 11 fingers...): Bussing does not work. We tried it. We know that. It may raise scores of those being bussed in, but the other problems it causes to the school far outweigh this. As good socialists, you should all know that what we are after here is the betterment of the many, not the few.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:16 AM

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:23 AM

http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1332

That should be freely available. It's the article I was thinking of and when I pull it up through the databases, the son of a bitch lists no cites.

However, I found another article by him that does list cites. If you'd like to read it for yourself:

But here's the part you're asking about from the first one:

I also have, though:

Let me know if you want more, but if you have access to a database or your library does, that should be enough for you to find those articles at least.

This is the same data, in general, I recall reading some decades ago regarding the academic results of bussing.

This work raises more questions than it answers: will there be some lottery to select those "few" lower socio-economic kids to be bussed to the more "middle-class" schools? What happens if, while there, the parent of one of these kids gets a raise and is no longer in that class? They get the boot?

How does being a "free lunch" kid in a Brentwood public school impact the self-esteem of the children bussed in from Compton?

Does "lower socio-economic" cohort include those whose first language is not English or who speak no English at all? How will this be addressed in an "English only" school?

How will these selectkids get to the school? Bussing was how it was done back in the 70s. This was a nighmare, but the kids were able to get to school. Since we know that did not work then, why would we assume it will work now? Or is this to be modeled after programs such as the "New Math"? Wait until all of the parents sending their kids to school have forgotten about it, then give it another go, even though we already know it was and will be an abysmal failure?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:30 AM

Evidence, please?

Wrong. Taxpayers are still paying what they always have - it's not the taxpayers who have decided to eliminate budget for education, but the city and state themselves, often in closed meetings.

As for the 'lousy product', our schools are a lot better than most states. For one thing, we're not even trying to teach Creationism.

Again, wrong. Do you ever research anything, or do you just trust in your own infallible intellect?

Because of course, if they were being fair about it, they'd only hire half as many teachers and dock them all 50% of their pay... ??

Every child has a right to education, no matter why or how he's in the country.

And as much as I'd like to see some actual evidence from you, it's pretty clear that you are a) unwilling or unable to provide evidence, and b) are a filthy racist.

Go back to Europe and quit polluting our soil.

--Z, more Chiricahua than European.

Evidence: Sure: find a jr. high textbook from say, 1940 and compare it to one from today.

Taxes: I love posters who leave out vital data so that they can "cleverly" trap someone, then permitting them to shriek "wrong!!!" If this is the case (evidence!?) then why don't the citizens it is impacting DO something? I don't know the law in Ohio, but we have a sunshine law here and virtually anytime local politicos try and pull this BS, they find themselves dragged in chains onto the carpet. If you are too cowardly to do this in your state to your officials, don't blame me.

"Lousy product" refers to ALL American schools, on average. I was not picking on the Buckeyes! Calm down. Have another Keystone Lite. Light up a relaxing Salem.

Not sure what these next few paras of shrieking admonition are about, so I'll skip them.

Wrong. We PERMIT every child here to enter our public schools (this was fought out, and the NEA won...I wonder why they found this in their best interests?). These are the children of people here ILLEGALLY. No other nation on the planet handles aliens--legal or otherwise--this way. Go to Mexico and try to enter a public school there. If you are a non-citizen...you have to pay tuition to defray your costs.

And there it is..."RAAAACCCIIISTTTTT!!! Viva Aztlan!!! We are gonna take it back from you gabachos!!!"

LOL.

What a hysteric.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:32 AM

Question:

Why is it if I identify someone for their political leanings and call them a "left-liberal" or "liberal" or even "socialist" that's an ad hom, most foul that is reported to the moderators?

When, with no evidence whatsoever, someone else shrieks that I am a "RAAAACCCIIISSSTTTTT" who should "GO HOME!!!" (...my great-great-great grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War...he was a Hessian, and therefore on the wrong side...but nonetheless...), that is "okay"?

Tokie

Zep

2nd October 2007, 05:33 AM

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:35 AM

Do you always go off like this without actually addressing the questions?

Keep guessing. Oh, and a guess is not a "fact", btw.

So many errors, so little content. :rolleyes: And it seems like you want to answer your own questions now; carry on your own conversation. So what was the point of you posting at all? Oh yes: to rant. Oh well. Carry on. When you are calmer we will talk some more.

You REALLY don't have a clue, do you. Just mindless ranting. Incidentally, it's spelled "disrupt". You should have paid attention in spelling class... ;)

1. You'd have to be more specific and address the specific issue you are um, specifically shrieking about.

2. Really? A guess is not a fact? Has anyone told Hillary?

3. LOL. So that's the big finish...out of hundreds of words, you pick one I mispelled and shriek "see!!!?? SEEEEEE!!!??? Toldja!!! TOLDJA!!!! I'm right and you're wrong!!!!"

And then you call what _I_ posted a rant?

Wow.

Just....wow.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:38 AM

Hi Tokie! Do you mind if I just sit here and watch you rant for a while? Obviously you don't need us to provide either the questions or the answers. You just needed a soapbox.

:popcorn1:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dba0048l.jpg
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/dba0048l.jpg

Go right ahead. By the way, did you know that you can get a 20# bag of popcorn for about $6.00 at Sam's Club?

Actually, I always appreciate spirited, reasoned discourse. I don't often find it, primarily because of the forums I pick, but I still appreciate it. A few of the response posts in here have reached for that brass ring. Most have just shrieked the hoary, ever-expected "RAAAACCCCIIIISSSTTT!!! Go Home _gababho_!!!" cant at me, as people on "that" side of this argument must, because, clearly they really have no argument.

Best,
Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 05:42 AM

Evidence, please?

Every child has a right to education, no matter why or how he's in the country.

Go back to Europe and quit polluting our soil.

--Z, more Chiricahua than European.

This is all very telling.

First, you have this person making this patently false assertion. There is NOTHNG in the US Constitution about education, in fact, therefore, every child does not have a "right" to a ("free") education here. Moreover...why stop with just the children of illegals? Why not, at our expense, bring in the child of anyone in the world who would like them to be educated here? If "every" child has a "right" to education, isn't that the logical conclusion?

Followed by accusing ME of racism, and in the same breath shrieking "go back to Europe!"

I ask you (well, anyone able to reason) who is demonstrating his/her racism here, me or this poster?

Tokie

Zep

2nd October 2007, 06:14 AM

1. You'd have to be more specific and address the specific issue you are um, specifically shrieking about.Me? Shrieking? :confused: Oh, I see! That's a joke!

2. Really? A guess is not a fact? Has anyone told Hillary?Hillary who? And this has to do with your OP how?

(I can see the real connection - you are just wanting to rant, so you will pick any nearby subject.)

3. LOL. So that's the big finish...out of hundreds of words, you pick one I mispelled and shriek "see!!!?? SEEEEEE!!!??? Toldja!!! TOLDJA!!!! I'm right and you're wrong!!!!""Big finish?" Tres amusement! I'm just waiting for you to blow off your steam before I even start.

And then you call what _I_ posted a rant?

Wow.

Just....wow.

TokieDo you actually have a irony-control knob on you somewhere? 'Cos it's stuck at 11... Looks like you're not ready to talk sensibly yet, so I'll give you a bit more time, OK?

Zep

2nd October 2007, 06:19 AM

Go right ahead. By the way, did you know that you can get a 20# bag of popcorn for about $6.00 at Sam's Club?Where? Never heard of it...

Actually, I always appreciate spirited, reasoned discourse. I don't often find it, primarily because of the forums I pick, but I still appreciate it. A few of the response posts in here have reached for that brass ring. Most have just shrieked the hoary, ever-expected "RAAAACCCCIIIISSSTTT!!! Go Home _gababho_!!!" cant at me, as people on "that" side of this argument must, because, clearly they really have no argument.

Best,
TokieSo let me get this straight - correct any errors here, please.

1) You "appreciate spirited reasoned discourse".

2) You are convinced "the other side" have no arguments to counter you whatsoever.

3) Every forum you have been to so far has ended up screaming ""RAAAACCCCIIIISSSTTT!!! Go Home" at you.

4) The same is happening here, nearly.

Correct so far?

genesplicer

2nd October 2007, 10:50 AM

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 11:10 AM

Me? Shrieking? :confused: Oh, I see! That's a joke!

Hillary who? And this has to do with your OP how?

(I can see the real connection - you are just wanting to rant, so you will pick any nearby subject.)

"Big finish?" Tres amusement! I'm just waiting for you to blow off your steam before I even start.

Do you actually have a irony-control knob on you somewhere? 'Cos it's stuck at 11... Looks like you're not ready to talk sensibly yet, so I'll give you a bit more time, OK?

Sorry...I guess I don't see the joke.

I hope you start soon....

Irony control knob?

I've used computers for nigh unto 20-25 years now...never seen one a them thar.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 11:12 AM

Where? Never heard of it...

So let me get this straight - correct any errors here, please.

1) You "appreciate spirited reasoned discourse".

2) You are convinced "the other side" have no arguments to counter you whatsoever.

3) Every forum you have been to so far has ended up screaming ""RAAAACCCCIIIISSSTTT!!! Go Home" at you.

4) The same is happening here, nearly.

Correct so far?

1. Yes.

2. Well, let's see..YOU are on the other side, and so far your brilliant rebuttals have been limited to accusing me of engaging in a racist rant.

3. No.

4. Well, that's what's happening here, yes (gee...I can't IMAGINE where Zep is leading me with this clever line of questioning...how much Law & Order does this guy watch!?).

Tokie

Professor Yaffle

2nd October 2007, 11:23 AM

This is all very telling.

First, you have this person making this patently false assertion. There is NOTHNG in the US Constitution about education, in fact, therefore, every child does not have a "right" to a ("free") education here. Moreover...why stop with just the children of illegals? Why not, at our expense, bring in the child of anyone in the world who would like them to be educated here? If "every" child has a "right" to education, isn't that the logical conclusion?

There may be nothing in the US constitution but from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Article 28 states the child's right to education, and says it shall be on the basis of equal opportunity.

Article 29 states that a child's education should be directed at developing the child's personality and talents, and mental and physical abilities to their 'fullest potential'. It also states that education shall prepare the child for an active and responsible life as an adult, fostering respect for basic human rights and developing respect for the child's own cultural and national values and those of others.

But then, the US is one of only 2 countries (the other being Somalia) which has not ratified the agreement (it is signed but not yet ratified).

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 11:24 AM

If I could change one thing about our education system that might make it better, I would require all elected officials to send their children to public schools in their home districts...

As for the whole pay thing. I am well paid, when you look at my pay compared to the average for the city where I work. However, I am also paid less than half of what a comparably-educated professional such as doctor or lawyer is in this town, despite the fact I have had more education than the average lawyer, and as much as the average doctor...

Tokie says the school will run with full staff, even if it is empty. Nothing can be further from the truth. Each school is given a staff level based on number of students. Fewer students = fewer staff. Our school lost 2 teachers this year due to shifting population patterns. Another middle school gained 4. That's the way it goes in many places. No school would hang on to teachers because the union demanded it. They may negotiate the contracted maximum size of the class (mine is 36), but the district will definitely make sure there is a minimum, as well.

If classes are overcrowded, they will take the overflow and create a new class (Happened to me last year, I was asked to teach an extra period of 8th grade science.) If classes are too lean, they will consolidate and eliminate positions...

Another funny thing. All professionals are required to do continuing "Professional development" after they receive their credentials/licenses. This means taking refresher courses, learning new things, etc. Before I renewed my credential last time, I discovered that I was required to do twice as many professional development hours as a doctor, in order to renew my papers...

Oh, my ESL kids speak more than Spanish. Most do speak Spanish, but I also have French, Farsi, Russian, Hmong and indonesian. And that is just this year...

1. I like that idea from an emotional level, but there's no reason to make the children of these people suffer. Most of these kids can't stand their parents, either.

2. Then...switch jobs. I am better educated than the average mason or plumber here, and any of them with the same number of years under their belt doing their job who is not making 2-3x what I do, is not doing their job very well. If you want to find someone to blame for you "low" (comparative) pay, I suggest the next time you get your monthly newsletter from the NEA, you remember this converstation.

3. Again. I am talking about where I live. And here, that's exactly what they've BEEN doing. Lately, once this became widley known, they've had to stop doing it. We had a "failing" school here with a student:teacher ratio of 12:1. The reason was because as the population of the school dropped dramatically (both because of neighborhood demographics AND because smart people were taking their kids elsewhere) the teachers employed there remained the same. Here, the reason they were "haning onto" these teachers was because the union (NEA) told them they had to. I'm sorry you don't like or don't believe that, and will now shriek for a link--LIIIIINNKKKKKKK!!!--but that's the way it is not only here, but many other places. You are apparently in a smaller area where the community retains more control.

CE: I am required to do this sort of stuff periodically as well. It's a good idea in SOME cases. And so you do more than a doctor...but...I though yours was the most important profession, so why shouldn't you? By the way, this stuff is very rarely set up according to what's actually needed, but instead according to what the CE companies want. If they get a politician in your state in their pocket, you have to take more classes.

Language: yeah, there is a very large Russian/Ukrainian/Armenian/Georgian immigrant population here. They speak their native languages, AND English. Also...how many ESL classes does your school have in Farsi, Russian, French...? Our schools have um..well, at last count, none. We only have ESL classes for SPANISH-speaking students for some reason. And for some reason, the kids who speak Russian etc., get along just fine. Taught a girl Bosnia a few years ago. She'd witnesse her entire family being beheaded, raped, chopped up etc. and had escaped being butchered (she did not escape being gang raped at 11 yrs of age) by hinding under the bleeding bodies of her parents and siblings. She spoke...Bosnian. That's all. She earned straight As. She was a very nice little girl who did not flash gang signs or get into fights with other girls every day.

Hmmmm....

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 11:26 AM

There may be nothing in the US constitution but from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Hmmmm...I guess I missed the memo. When, precisely, did the UN take precedence over the US Constitution in the US?

Do you have link--LIIIIINNNKKKKKKKK!!!!--to that memo?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 11:27 AM

There may be nothing in the US constitution but from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

So that means that Mexico, say...is ignoring the UN mandate?

They offer public education only to the 8th grade. Shouldn't something be done about this?

Or...IS something being done?

Tokie

FenrisWolf

2nd October 2007, 12:17 PM

2. Then...switch jobs. [...] If you want to find someone to blame for you "low" (comparative) pay, I suggest the next time you get your monthly newsletter from the NEA, you remember this converstation.

If all the good teachers change jobs to get higher pay, how does that help the situation? And note that private schools pay teachers LESS than public (unionized) schools. So switch jobs to where, exactly?

We had a "failing" school here with a student:teacher ratio of 12:1. The reason was because as the population of the school dropped dramatically (both because of neighborhood demographics AND because smart people were taking their kids elsewhere) the teachers employed there remained the same. Here, the reason they were "haning onto" these teachers was because the union (NEA) told them they had to. I'm sorry you don't like or don't believe that, and will now shriek for a link--LIIIIINNKKKKKKK!!!--but that's the way it is not only here, but many other places. You are apparently in a smaller area where the community retains more control.

Do you know where you are? This is a skeptic's board, and screaming for links is entirely appropriate. If you don't like it, don't post here.

Second, your "smaller area" comment makes me laugh. I live in Los Angeles, and teacher population is tied to student enrollment here. When enrollment drops, teachers are let go. So if this isn't happening in your area, let me quote some advice you gave in this thread back at you: "If you are too cowardly to do this in your state to your officials, don't blame me."

Taught a girl Bosnia a few years ago. She'd witnesse her entire family being beheaded, raped, chopped up etc. and had escaped being butchered (she did not escape being gang raped at 11 yrs of age) by hinding under the bleeding bodies of her parents and siblings. She spoke...Bosnian. That's all. She earned straight As. She was a very nice little girl who did not flash gang signs or get into fights with other girls every day.

What conclusion do you draw from this charming anecdote? Assuming your point is that Mexican children are inferior to Bosnian children, what remedy to fix this do you suggest? Maybe Mexican immigrant girls should have their family beheaded and be gang-raped at 11 so that they do better in school?

(See, I can jump to incorrect conclusions from anecdotal evidence, too!)

Professor Yaffle

2nd October 2007, 12:23 PM

fishbob

2nd October 2007, 02:14 PM

. . . in the meantime, schools in places like where I live, are falling apart and those who have an actual right to be there are getting a(n even more) sub-standard education because of the overwhelming presence of these people.

Yes. I said "these people." I must be a RAAAACCCIIIISSTTTTTTTTTT!!!

Underfunded schools in poor neighborhoods have been falling apart and providing sub-standard education for at least the last 40 years. So yeah - seems that way. Or is this more of that hyperbole stuff* you are so fond of?

*100% fact free.

Zep

2nd October 2007, 03:44 PM

Sorry...I guess I don't see the joke.

I hope you start soon....

Irony control knob?

I've used computers for nigh unto 20-25 years now...never seen one a them thar.

TokieNo, I guess you don't see the joke. Most clowns can't see their own funny face without a mirror. And I've been a professional computer manager for over 32 years, so you're just a newbie user to me.

1) You "appreciate spirited reasoned discourse".1. Yes.You appreciate it, but can you actually do it?

2) You are convinced "the other side" have no arguments to counter you whatsoever.2. Well, let's see..YOU are on the other side, and so far your brilliant rebuttals have been limited to accusing me of engaging in a racist rant.Wrong on two counts. You are the one who has put me on "the other side", not me. And as for racist rants, that seems to be you inventing stuff out of thin air. perhaps you could point out where I have actually accused you of any racist rant? Hmmm? And I take it you will be retracting and apologising shortly? Thanks.

3) Every forum you have been to so far has ended up screaming ""RAAAACCCCIIIISSSTTT!!! Go Home" at you.3. No.Good. Remember you said that, OK?

4) The same is happening here, nearly.4. Well, that's what's happening here, yes (gee...I can't IMAGINE where Zep is leading me with this clever line of questioning...how much Law & Order does this guy watch!?).What clever line of questioning? I'm merely trying to understand why you are getting yourself all worked up over imaginary slights you invented yourself out of thin air, then having a little tantrum because of that. And why that seems to happen everywhere you go.

And I have never watched that show. Really. So your jibe is wasted.

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 04:34 PM

If all the good teachers change jobs to get higher pay, how does that help the situation? And note that private schools pay teachers LESS than public (unionized) schools. So switch jobs to where, exactly?

Do you know where you are? This is a skeptic's board, and screaming for links is entirely appropriate. If you don't like it, don't post here.

Second, your "smaller area" comment makes me laugh. I live in Los Angeles, and teacher population is tied to student enrollment here. When enrollment drops, teachers are let go. So if this isn't happening in your area, let me quote some advice you gave in this thread back at you: "If you are too cowardly to do this in your state to your officials, don't blame me."

What conclusion do you draw from this charming anecdote? Assuming your point is that Mexican children are inferior to Bosnian children, what remedy to fix this do you suggest? Maybe Mexican immigrant girls should have their family beheaded and be gang-raped at 11 so that they do better in school?

(See, I can jump to incorrect conclusions from anecdotal evidence, too!)

Switch to one of those medical or law jobs.

Yes... private schools pay considerably less. And you get a much better product from most.

Funny that.

I like it just fine. Dun't mean I will post any links--LIIIIIINNNNKKKKSSSSSSSS!!!!--but I like it.

That's good to hear considering a socialist runs the unified LA system. In any case, you are right, that's what we should do around here. Many of us (like me) have worked for years to change that system. Alas, we just stupidly elected a Dem gov and gave the Dems control of our state legislature (what you call an assembly). So...that's not gonna happen now.

In fact, here is what the local paper is reporting today, on this very subject in our capitol city's school district: that while school enrollment is at an all-time low, and at least eight (count 'em, 8!) schools have such low populations they SHOULD be shut down, now schools will be shuttered.

Now, of course the teachers/union say this is because they want to serve the children. Any rational thinker scoffs at this. Rational thinkers realize that if they close these schools, a couple of hundred teachers will be out pounding the pavement. And since the city is run by an extremely left-liberal mayor who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of first, the Mexican Consulate here, and second, the NEA (and it's state version) and given that the Dem president of our state legislature is a former teacher and former pres. of the state chapter of the NEA...what do you think the chances are that they will put a couple of hundred teachers out of work are?

Do the terms "nil" and "none" mean anything to you?

Mexican children are not inferior to Bosnian children. Mexican culture, is another thing. Mexican culture, actually, sees little benefit in educating mere girls, anyway. The point is, most of the Mexicans who come here are far better off in the first place (despite the myths) than was this child. Somehow, she managed to pull straight As in a language she only barely understood without ANY ESL...I wonder how?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 04:39 PM

No, I guess you don't see the joke. Most clowns can't see their own funny face without a mirror. And I've been a professional computer manager for over 32 years, so you're just a newbie user to me.

You appreciate it, but can you actually do it?

Wrong on two counts. You are the one who has put me on "the other side", not me. And as for racist rants, that seems to be you inventing stuff out of thin air. perhaps you could point out where I have actually accused you of any racist rant? Hmmm? And I take it you will be retracting and apologising shortly? Thanks.

Good. Remember you said that, OK?

What clever line of questioning? I'm merely trying to understand why you are getting yourself all worked up over imaginary slights you invented yourself out of thin air, then having a little tantrum because of that. And why that seems to happen everywhere you go.

And I have never watched that show. Really. So your jibe is wasted.

LOL!

I love stuff like this. Oooohhhh! A PROFESSIONAL computer managers (whateverthehellthatis)!! I am soooo impressed.

Sheesh.

If you are not among those shrieking (and filling the moderator's mailbox with complaints) that I am a RAAAACCCIIIISSTTTTTTTT!!! I do apologize. One tends to lose count when slaying Orcs left and right, you know.

Given the way this forum quotes things, it might be a good idea to re-reference, in the text, when you are firing off pithy one-line retorts. I have no idea what you are um...retorting so pithily about here.

I'm not the one in high dudgeon over some upstart computer newbie...and in those 32 years, by the way...where's that key?

Perry Mason then?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

2nd October 2007, 04:44 PM

Underfunded schools in poor neighborhoods have been falling apart and providing sub-standard education for at least the last 40 years. So yeah - seems that way. Or is this more of that hyperbole stuff* you are so fond of?

*100% fact free.

Now, I guess I am confused...you say that underfunded schools are falling apart and providing poor education for the past 40 years,...and so do I, and you identify that statement as "100% fact free."

So, are we both inaccurate, or liars?

Of course, if you know anything about high-use buildings such as schools, you know that regardless of where they are or who is using them, they start "falling apart" from the day they are opened. And well-funded schools, by the way, are ALSO turning out a poor product (the one post in here talks about the $13k/head they spend in DC schools, which are unequaled anywhere in the nation for doing the very worst possible job).

The issue is what is going on inside schools, poor, rich or in-between, before the actual physical structures are ground into dust. And on this, we seem to agree: not much that's very good.

Tokie

Zep

2nd October 2007, 07:06 PM

LOL!

I love stuff like this. Oooohhhh! A PROFESSIONAL computer managers (whateverthehellthatis)!! I am soooo impressed.OK, I'll explain for the stupido. It means I get paid to fix up the mistakes of people like you, and show them where and why they went wrong. But enough about me; lets get back to chatting with you.

Sheesh.

If you are not among those shrieking (and filling the moderator's mailbox with complaints) that I am a RAAAACCCIIIISSTTTTTTTT!!! I do apologize. One tends to lose count when slaying Orcs left and right, you know.Thank you. Perhaps it might be a moment for you to reconsider why you decided to be a Vogon. Personally, you are little more than a few minute's harmless diversion from real life.

Given the way this forum quotes things, it might be a good idea to re-reference, in the text, when you are firing off pithy one-line retorts. I have no idea what you are um...retorting so pithily about here.So it would seem. Well, how about you make it an exercise to go back and reread the thread and find out?

I'm not the one in high dudgeon over some upstart computer newbie...and in those 32 years, by the way...where's that key?Oh so I'm in "high dudgeon" now? Project much? Unless you mean some town in the UK...just near Great Dudgeon, I imagine.

Perry Mason then?Nope, but feel free to keep on guessing. It's fun watching you flounder.

fishbob

2nd October 2007, 07:36 PM

Now, I guess I am confused...

Apparently.

You said: in the meantime, schools in places like where I live, are falling apart and those who have an actual right to be there are getting a(n even more) sub-standard education because of the overwhelming presence of these people.

I said: Underfunded schools in poor neighborhoods have been falling apart and providing sub-standard education for at least the last 40 years.

The presence of "these people" might not necessarily be the reason for sub-standard education. You might want to take a look at the facts before so freely assigning blame.

fuelair

2nd October 2007, 07:49 PM

http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1332

That should be freely available. It's the article I was thinking of and when I pull it up through the databases, the son of a bitch lists no cites.

However, I found another article by him that does list cites. If you'd like to read it for yourself:

But here's the part you're asking about from the first one:

I also have, though:

Let me know if you want more, but if you have access to a database or your library does, that should be enough for you to find those articles at least.Just as a quick response, I notice That the phrases "do not lower and "might" are used. What I will see if I can find is whether there is an unequivocal statement on it - and what I suspect (since I have seen no really specific data - even in the samples you kindly gave me) is that there will not be one (that will not affect me in my hunt _ I learned a long time ago not to let suspicions/biases/beliefs overwhelm accuracy and I value my research skills to much to let something like that affect me/the research.) By the by, the reasons I suspect there will be no real studies is I, at this point, have taught a long time in situations where the persons from a poverty background behaved as they are taught in that background (which is perfectly (for analysis of this, hunt up and read Ruby Payne who writes and consults on poverty and it's effects on school (not hard statistics though) normal for them) and that includes actions (calling out//expecting sharing of material things -esp. food/money// trying to entertain the class and such - all of which have value in their home environment but are disruptive in the normal school environment. Those behaviors do not tend to make the children from mc/uppermc comfortable, ergo I would expect lowered grade/learning at best. (Note, this is definitely not anti anyone - our school has paid good money as have most of the local systems to train us in what to expect based on the sociology of people from both long-term (multi-generational) poverty, shorter-term poverty and immediate but likely very short-term poverty. The group I note above show the signs of multi-generational.)

Zep

2nd October 2007, 08:34 PM

NICE parentheses! :clap: :D

LostAngeles

2nd October 2007, 09:45 PM

Just as a quick response, I notice That the phrases "do not lower and "might" are used. What I will see if I can find is whether there is an unequivocal statement on it - and what I suspect (since I have seen no really specific data - even in the samples you kindly gave me) is that there will not be one (that will not affect me in my hunt _ I learned a long time ago not to let suspicions/biases/beliefs overwhelm accuracy and I value my research skills to much to let something like that affect me/the research.) By the by, the reasons I suspect there will be no real studies is I, at this point, have taught a long time in situations where the persons from a poverty background behaved as they are taught in that background (which is perfectly (for analysis of this, hunt up and read Ruby Payne who writes and consults on poverty and it's effects on school (not hard statistics though) normal for them) and that includes actions (calling out//expecting sharing of material things -esp. food/money// trying to entertain the class and such - all of which have value in their home environment but are disruptive in the normal school environment. Those behaviors do not tend to make the children from mc/uppermc comfortable, ergo I would expect lowered grade/learning at best. (Note, this is definitely not anti anyone - our school has paid good money as have most of the local systems to train us in what to expect based on the sociology of people from both long-term (multi-generational) poverty, shorter-term poverty and immediate but likely very short-term poverty. The group I note above show the signs of multi-generational.)

True. Research in the social sciences, while very helpful, is very easily muddled by other factors that are harder to isolate than muddling factors in the, "hard," sciences.

That's part of why I'm a math major. :D

I can speak anecdotally when it comes to some of the behaviors and patterns I've seen, but it's anecdotes.

bpesta22

2nd October 2007, 10:13 PM

The only factor (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-4086(197602)20%3A1%3C42%3AABNOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J) that has been consistently correlated (http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/75/3/417)with academic achievement is socio-economic status. (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0407(197323)46%3A4%3C480%3ASSARTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V)

The only only other factor correlated with academic achievement would be IQ.

The problem is naive empiricism; the notion that if all little johnnies got the same quality education, all little johnnies would achieve the same.

Alas, not so. Those born with higher IQ's will benefit more from extra funding and suffer less from things like large classrooms. The fix environmentally just widens the gap-- ironically, the more we seek to equate educational experience, the more the difference will emerge.

If purists would entertain the thought that some non-trivial chunk of IQ comes from sheer luck (i.e., genes) then the failures here make complete sense. Perhaps IQ causes SES and not vice versa?

How many billions more do we have to spend before we admit it?

Could we shift some of the $ to basic research on intelligence? The answer needs to be scientific not political.

ImaginalDisc

2nd October 2007, 10:35 PM

The only only other factor correlated with academic achievement would be IQ.

The problem is naive empiricism; the notion that if all little johnnies got the same quality education, all little johnnies would achieve the same.

Alas, not so. Those born with higher IQ's will benefit more from extra funding and suffer less from things like large classrooms. The fix environmentally just widens the gap-- ironically, the more we seek to equate educational experience, the more the difference will emerge.

If purists would entertain the thought that some non-trivial chunk of IQ comes from sheer luck (i.e., genes) then the failures here make complete sense. Perhaps IQ causes SES and not vice versa?

How many billions more do we have to spend before we admit it?

Could we shift some of the $ to basic research on intelligence? The answer needs to be scientific not political.

IQ tests are highly unreliable and your assertion is not well supported by the evidence. Study after study show that it is socio-economic status which is most strongly correlated with academic success. As education can increase measured IQ scores, IQ is a miserable measure.

bpesta22

2nd October 2007, 10:53 PM

IQ tests are highly unreliable and your assertion is not well supported by the evidence. Study after study show that it is socio-economic status which is most strongly correlated with academic success. As education can increase measured IQ scores, IQ is a miserable measure.

We must be reading different literatures. Even the APA conceded that IQ and educational achievement are strongly related (.5 for gpa; .55 for years education) and conceded that no environmental intervention has been capable of raising IQ in the long run.

If it interests you and doesn't seem like a derail, please cite some studies showing that education increases one's IQ (I'd argue the cause goes the other way).

I'd have to dig it up, but I remember reading a study where IQ predicted grades after controlling for ses, but ses no longer predicted grades after controlling for IQ.

ImaginalDisc

2nd October 2007, 10:58 PM

We must be reading different literatures. Even the APA conceded that IQ and educational achievement are strongly related (.5 for gpa; .55 for years education) and conceded that no environmental intervention has been capable of raising IQ in the long run.

If it interests you and doesn't seem like a derail, please cite some studies showing that education increases one's IQ (I'd argue the cause goes the other way).

I'd have to dig it up, but I remember reading a study where IQ predicted grades after controlling for ses, but ses no longer predicted grades after controlling for IQ.

The key controversy surrounding intelligence testing, Quiñones says, is whether the tests measure innate ability or acquired knowledge. If they test innate ability as some claim, does that mean intelligence is unchangeable?

The notion that mental ability is largely genetic and can’t be improved has come under serious attack.

In fact, scholar James Flynn has shown that IQ scores in the Western world have increased by 15 points in one generation. The political science professor from New Zealand’s University of Otago also has concluded that Americans of the 1970s were 22 points smarter than Americans of the 1890s.

Another criticism of IQ tests is the self-fulfilling prophecy issue. Claude Steele, a psychologist at Stanford University, has shown that people who are expected to score low generally will do so. Black students in particular, he says, suffer from what he calls “stereotype vulnerability.” But Steele asserts that stereotype vulnerability is not limited to blacks. He once gave a group of white students a math test and told them that Asians tended to do better on it than whites. The result proved his point. “That may be enough of a reason to say that labeling someone early is not an appropriate thing to do,” Quiñones suggests.

A third issue is whether intelligence tests measure an innate core of mental ability known as general intelligence. Some studies have shown that people who score well on a mathematics test will probably do well on vocabulary. “Some people have taken that as evidence that there is a general level of intelligence that underlies all mental abilities,” says Quiñones. Opponents of this view say that there are many dimensions to intelligence and that IQ tests are not broad enough to measure abilities such as musical and mechanical talents. “The multiple intelligence view appeals to people’s sense of fairness,” notes Quiñones. “They can say, ‘Oh, Johnny may not be so smart in math, but he’s one heck of a violinist.’”

Source. (http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2002/fall/features/testing/testingtesting.html)

There's all sorts of problems with IQ tests. You can accurately measure the SES status of a preschooler, but measuring the preschooler's IQ is much harder., if it even has any validity at all. Children in head start programs test better on evalutations such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability test, but that doesn't mean the child is smarter.

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 06:03 AM

Apparently.

You said:

I said:

The presence of "these people" might not necessarily be the reason for sub-standard education. You might want to take a look at the facts before so freely assigning blame.

Ohhh...now I see where your PC bias is coming from...

Um...yes, that's true. Buildings that are in use (and even those that are not) begin to deteriorate, sometimes, even before they are completed, depending upon such things as contruction materials, design, contruction quality, etc. So yep....buildings--houses, garden sheds, and yes, even school buildings--do "fall apart" over time.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Now, let's see if we can approach this from a more rational (mine) and less howling emotional (your) angle:

Can we agree as a baseline that let say a garden shed that is never used, is kept say, in a garden shed purveyor's showroom, it's doors ajar for display, will deteriorate much less quickly than one kept, say, on the grounds of a busy apartment complex where it is used, daily, by dozens of groundskeepers. The doors opened and shut, thing thrown in and dragged out, exposed to the weather, etc.? Can we at least agree the second shed is LIKELY to experience for "falling apart" than the first in a shorter period of time?

If not, we have nothing further to discuss.

If we CAN agree to this, then perhaps we can move on.

Now, let's say you have two school buildings. Both brand new. One is stuffed to overflowing with students and teachers, serving say, 120-130% of its intended capacity because it is in the center of a neighborhood where, just for the sake of argument, lets say an mini-baby boom has happened. On the other hand, lets say we also have a brand new school building in a very low-density/population rural area. This building serves 20-30% of its intended capacity.

I submit that the first building will "fall apart" much faster than the second.

Absent a slew of "yeah, buts!!!" do you see anything wrong with my argument?

Now, let's look at "the education," and look at more real world situations. Where I live, it is a FACT that schools with higher populations of "Hispanics" as local leftist newspapers, the local leftist teachers organizations and the local leftist governments call them, have higher drop out rates, more problems with truancy, and violence and other crime (including vandalism), and much, much lower scores on state-mandated standardized testing.

Now, we can run around in circles chasing our PC tails and making all sorts of ridiculous claims about how we "don't know!!!" that the majority of this "Hispanic" students are the children of illegal immigrants, or we can make an HONEST assessment of the school population.

When we do that (the honest rather than PC-dishonest assessment) we can from that draw a rather simple conclusion: the more children of illegals you stuff into a school, the worse the school is across a host of issues, including its standardized test scores.

Of course, making an HONEST assessment means opening oneself up to shrieking accusations of RAAAACCCIIIIISSSSSMMMMMMM!!! but I, for one (and apparently a voice in the wilderness here) am willing to take that risk.

Are you?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 06:06 AM

OK, I'll explain for the stupido. It means I get paid to fix up the mistakes of people like you, and show them where and why they went wrong. But enough about me; lets get back to chatting with you.

Thank you. Perhaps it might be a moment for you to reconsider why you decided to be a Vogon. Personally, you are little more than a few minute's harmless diversion from real life.

So it would seem. Well, how about you make it an exercise to go back and reread the thread and find out?

Oh so I'm in "high dudgeon" now? Project much? Unless you mean some town in the UK...just near Great Dudgeon, I imagine.

Nope, but feel free to keep on guessing. It's fun watching you flounder.

Vogon? Are you inviting me to recite?

LOL. I love folks who make a game of forcing someone in a forum like this to "guess" about them and why they might have some valuable input.

Seems to me, in an education forum, as an IT professional (sorry for the mixup...language thing again...you Brits should learn to speak English), your opinions about the issue carry no more weight than my own, and probably considerably less since I was a teacher in a public school for a short time and have substitute taught for years.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 06:09 AM

Oh I wasn't wanting to get into a peeing competition about which country provides the best education. Just trying to give an indication of what most decent people would consider a basic human right - regardless of whether it is legally enforced.

No...actually what you were doing was trying to argue that the US should be forced by the UN to provide "free" education to anyone who can sneak in here, and in fact, that our borders should be cast open so that everyone who wants to come here for a "free" education can.

I've heard this leftist-socialist argument before, you know. And like Kyoto, coming from the UN, it's primary design is not to help the poor chiluns, but to destroy the US economy.

It is not MY responosibility as a USian to educate all the chilruns of the world, regardless of what the UN mandates. My country--for now--is the USA not the UN, much as leftists would like to change that.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 06:16 AM

Just as a quick response, I notice That the phrases "do not lower and "might" are used. What I will see if I can find is whether there is an unequivocal statement on it - and what I suspect (since I have seen no really specific data - even in the samples you kindly gave me) is that there will not be one (that will not affect me in my hunt _ I learned a long time ago not to let suspicions/biases/beliefs overwhelm accuracy and I value my research skills to much to let something like that affect me/the research.) By the by, the reasons I suspect there will be no real studies is I, at this point, have taught a long time in situations where the persons from a poverty background behaved as they are taught in that background (which is perfectly (for analysis of this, hunt up and read Ruby Payne who writes and consults on poverty and it's effects on school (not hard statistics though) normal for them) and that includes actions (calling out//expecting sharing of material things -esp. food/money// trying to entertain the class and such - all of which have value in their home environment but are disruptive in the normal school environment. Those behaviors do not tend to make the children from mc/uppermc comfortable, ergo I would expect lowered grade/learning at best. (Note, this is definitely not anti anyone - our school has paid good money as have most of the local systems to train us in what to expect based on the sociology of people from both long-term (multi-generational) poverty, shorter-term poverty and immediate but likely very short-term poverty. The group I note above show the signs of multi-generational.)

Well, these are nice ways of describing what these kids from lower economic backgrounds are (statistically) often doing: disrupting. Now, I am not blaming THEM for this. I wouldn't blame a bear for biting me in the woods. I would KILL the bear for doing so, howmsoever.

In our (American) hyper-PC schools, it is viewed as better to allow kids who demonstrate these behaviors to go ahead and do so, disrupting classes all day long (I read a study showing that teachers in the ele. schools studied, estimated they spent something on the order of 75% of the teaching day dealing with disruptions...by my math, that leaves only 25% for actual teaching, and this sounds about right from what my kids report; they go to a school that is fed by lower-income to middle-middle income neighborhoods).

While you can certainly find "rich kids" who disrupt classes, in GENERAL, it's kids from the lower economic strata who make a school career of this. And in the Western and Southern US especially currently, many of these kids come from families that are here illegally.

It's not RACCCCCIIISSSMMMMMMMMMM!!! It's just a fact.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 06:18 AM

How many billions more do we have to spend before we admit it?

Could we shift some of the $ to basic research on intelligence? The answer needs to be scientific not political.

Many and....

What color is the sky in your world?

Tokie

bpesta22

3rd October 2007, 09:00 AM

bpesta22

3rd October 2007, 09:04 AM

Many and....

What color is the sky in your world?

Tokie

Wow, that's a compelling counterargument. Yes, we are morally obligated to spend money on something that doesn't work (versus redirect the spending, or some of it, to a different potential answer to a serious social problem) because the childrens are at risk. Anyone disagreeing with the above is clearly mentally ill.

:(

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 11:29 AM

Wow, that's a compelling counterargument. Yes, we are morally obligated to spend money on something that doesn't work (versus redirect the spending, or some of it, to a different potential answer to a serious social problem) because the childrens are at risk. Anyone disagreeing with the above is clearly mentally ill.

:(

Calm down, Pest.

I was agreeing with you.

I may be mentally ill, but so am I!

Tokie

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 11:31 AM

Wow, those three points on IQ ignore 100 years worth of data, in a seemingly desperate attempt to marginalize the science. If I get more time, I'll post some detail: but, the flynn effect is in crisis (look for publications coming out in Intelligence on this issue), Steele's work is crap, the positive manifold (scoring high on one cognitive test means scoring high on others) has never not been demonstrated.

I know the above sounds snarky, but if I get some time I think I can convince you to the level required of a skeptic / this forum.

I'm not up on this stuff, but you seem to be. I'm curious (and I don't know where you sit on the nature vs. nurture argument): those who say IQ is all or mostly "environment" seem to be saying that everything about us from hair and eye color to whether we will be an alky or die of colon cancer is largely hardwired into us genetically...everything BUT IQ?

How can this be?

Tokie

ImaginalDisc

3rd October 2007, 11:32 AM

Wow, those three points on IQ ignore 100 years worth of data, in a seemingly desperate attempt to marginalize the science. If I get more time, I'll post some detail: but, the flynn effect is in crisis (look for publications coming out in Intelligence on this issue), Steele's work is crap, the positive manifold (scoring high on one cognitive test means scoring high on others) has never not been demonstrated.

I know the above sounds snarky, but if I get some time I think I can convince you to the level required of a skeptic / this forum.

I see, so you've no problem with the idea of using tests of questionable accuracy to determine which students should be educated, in a sort of self-fullining prophecy?

Every child deserves equal access to eduational opportunities, regardless of their intelligence. Plenty of high IQ students squander their educational opportunities, and plenty of low IQ students go on to academic success. I would never support a system whereby children are sorted based on IQ, and opportunities were preferentially given to the "elite."

Frankly, your proposal disgusts me.

Tokenconservative

3rd October 2007, 12:26 PM

I see, so you've no problem with the idea of using tests of questionable accuracy to determine which students should be educated, in a sort of self-fullining prophecy?

Every child deserves equal access to eduational opportunities, regardless of their intelligence. Plenty of high IQ students squander their educational opportunities, and plenty of low IQ students go on to academic success. I would never support a system whereby children are sorted based on IQ, and opportunities were preferentially given to the "elite."

Frankly, your proposal disgusts me.

The American public "education" system did just this for many years, starting (sigh...again) in the early to mid-60s not even relying on something as demonstrably questionable as a standardized IQ test, but rather allowing teachers to determine whether a child should be in the "dummy" category or something else.

Tokie

bpesta22

3rd October 2007, 09:26 PM

bpesta22

3rd October 2007, 09:30 PM

I see, so you've no problem with the idea of using tests of questionable accuracy to determine which students should be educated, in a sort of self-fullining prophecy?

Every child deserves equal access to eduational opportunities, regardless of their intelligence. Plenty of high IQ students squander their educational opportunities, and plenty of low IQ students go on to academic success. I would never support a system whereby children are sorted based on IQ, and opportunities were preferentially given to the "elite."

Frankly, your proposal disgusts me.

Questionable accuracy, only to those who don't do work in the field. Accuracy is an empirical question, and it's been answered. Are IQ tests perfectly accurate. No way. Are they accurate enough to be of some practical use. For sure. So much so that I think testing in general and IQ testing specifically has been psychology's only real contribution to humanity (whatever our second place contribution is, it pales in comparison).

So the kid with an 85 IQ, which causes him to score in the 8% on the SAT should have the same opportunity to attend an elite public school as the kid with the 130 who scores in the 95%?

What if the 130 were black and the 85 white?

bpesta22

3rd October 2007, 09:33 PM

I'm not up on this stuff, but you seem to be. I'm curious (and I don't know where you sit on the nature vs. nurture argument): those who say IQ is all or mostly "environment" seem to be saying that everything about us from hair and eye color to whether we will be an alky or die of colon cancer is largely hardwired into us genetically...everything BUT IQ?

How can this be?

Tokie

My opinion would be irrelevant were it not based on what the science says. The consensus is that 0-25% of IQ is caused by the environment (closer to 25 when the kid is young, closer to zero as that same kid grows older, albeit in the same environment!). For genes, it's between 50-75%. It won't add to 1.0 because of error in the test and testing situation.

I can have an opinion on nature / nurture re IQ, but why bother when the science is clear.

Zep

4th October 2007, 03:22 AM

Vogon? Are you inviting me to recite?You can always recite if you feel the need to. Who am I to stop you!

LOL. I love folks who make a game of forcing someone in a forum like this to "guess" about them and why they might have some valuable input.Force? Who's using force! Guess, don't guess - see if I care. It's just fun to watch you getting sillier about this.

Seems to me, in an education forum, as an IT professional (sorry for the mixup...language thing again...you Brits should learn to speak English), your opinions about the issue carry no more weight than my own, and probably considerably less since I was a teacher in a public school for a short time and have substitute taught for years.

TokieOh, I wasn't promoting myself as more worthy than you, nor was I saying you have no valuable input. I was merely wondering when you were going to stop spinning, ranting, making highly erroneous accusations and self-projecting while giving it.

And I believe I speak English well enough, thank you.

Tokenconservative

4th October 2007, 06:18 AM

Sorry token; I did indeed misread yer post;)

Thanks for responding nicely to my screwup:)

I don't think we should sort people based on IQ, and give more to the brights and less to the non brights (nature will do that anyway, 30 or 40 years later). I agree that all people are born equal in terms of rights, just not in terms of ability.

I think we do a disservice to kids by assuming everyone is equally capable of learning stuff to the same degree and at the same rate. This philosophy-- what I called naive empiricism-- has been responsible for billions of dollars wasted in programs doomed to fail.

The type of educational approach one applies to 130s would seem different than that needed for 85s. Given the dire state of education today, what would we lose by recognizing the possibility that kids come to the table with different levels of mental ability. These differences seemed fixed at birth. These differences moreso than anything else determine what the kid will learn and how fast it will take him/her to learn it.

Starting from this perspective has to lead to different ideas and approaches to education. These approaches can do no worse than the old PC stuff we're doing now, and may even help. Surely, we could figure out how to temper the individual differences in IQ with the issue of fairness and access to education for everyone in a way where maybe we could actually apply the fairly-well advanced science of learning to a field where it's desparately needed-- teaching kids!

No problem...I am always happy to point up others' screwups.

As to the rest. While I understand and in large part agree with this approach,it is nevertheless fraught with problems, as the Brits discovered when they adopted the European "Gymnasium" education plan in which at about age 13, I believe, kids were tested and depening upon how they did on the tests that week, their entire life was set for them: those doing well were "permitted" to aim at going on to higher education. Those doing not so well were permitted to persue careers in...other areas. Like speding their lives on the Dole. A modified version of this was put in place in our schools in the 1960s, was phased out later when it was identified for the disaster it is, then Hillary Clinton back-doored it back into the schools in the 90s. Not as DIRECTLY as it is practised in Europe and was in Britain, but it's there, nonetheless.

Here is a very BIG problem with this as it was in the 60s and is now: who do you suppose decides whether your child is a "dummy" or a "genius"? Well, it's teachers. Now, keep in mind, there may be a few 2-4th grade teachers out there who are more than equal to this task, have dual Ph.Ds in sociology and psychology and practiced in public or private for decades. You can probably count the numbers of 2-4th grade teachers across the nation who fit this profile on one hand.

Otherwise, we would be leaving this judgement up to people who, in general, graduate at the very lowest levels of their college class and have become "teachers" primarily because they cannot become anything else.

I was myself identified as a "dummy" about this age (by 3rd grade) probably because I was not the most attentive little boy (shocker!!! Little boys are sometimes inattentive!!??). My "permanent record" preceeded me into each new class and I was treated as a dope, and a few teachers in high school actually told me they were shocked--SHOCKED!!--to discover by my level of thinking an work that I was not a drooling moron. Too late, by then of course, because I'd been treated as a "dummy" for too many years.

Sob, sob. Today of course, I make 5-8x as much as teachers earning the "top" pay in this area.

It is not enough in my mind, to do "no worse." We must strive to stop repeating the errors of the past and instead use the effective measures of the past incorporated with effective measures for today.

Instead, we have "education" driven by a labor union the only intent of which is to ensure more and more and more for its members. Yes, they certainly do a good job of paying lip-service to "for the children!" but that's not how it works out where the rubber meets the road. You are not going to get the best out of educaton institutions in which the lowest common denominator is teaching to the lowest common denominator. What you get, is a positive feedback loop that just makes it worse and worse and worse.

Those reading this and now shrieking "where's your evidence!!! Show me a LIIIIINNNNKKKKK!!!", um...no. Instead, do this: go find a standard school reference work from say, 1940 or 45, or 50. Compare it to one from say, 1970, 1980 and today. If you cannot see the steady downward spiral of the quality of learning these later textbooks demonstrate...it's because you are not yourself very bright.

If you CAN see it, and cannot bring yourself to admit it...it's because you are a part of the problem.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

4th October 2007, 06:23 AM

My opinion would be irrelevant were it not based on what the science says. The consensus is that 0-25% of IQ is caused by the environment (closer to 25 when the kid is young, closer to zero as that same kid grows older, albeit in the same environment!). For genes, it's between 50-75%. It won't add to 1.0 because of error in the test and testing situation.

I can have an opinion on nature / nurture re IQ, but why bother when the science is clear.

I don't know. I did recently read something in which the two battling sides of this were um...battling at a conference and in essense the result was a draw.

Again.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

4th October 2007, 06:30 AM

You can always recite if you feel the need to. Who am I to stop you!

Force? Who's using force! Guess, don't guess - see if I care. It's just fun to watch you getting sillier about this.

Oh, I wasn't promoting myself as more worthy than you, nor was I saying you have no valuable input. I was merely wondering when you were going to stop spinning, ranting, making highly erroneous accusations and self-projecting while giving it.

And I believe I speak English well enough, thank you.

I warn you that I would give any Vogon a run for his money...

Silly is as silly does.

Oh, of course you were! Whenever I, as a non-IT (that's what we call it here) professional run across someone on the interwebby who does work in IT, they simply LOVE to tell me how much better at computery stuff they are than am I! Brag away! If you actually work in that industry, I hope to Gaia you ARE much better'n me! It's always a curiosity to me though, that none of these folks seem to be better doctors or lawyers or plumbers...or better at my job than me....

And I love to projectile vomit. It's a marvelous way to cleanse the body of toxins.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

4th October 2007, 06:36 AM

Questionable accuracy, only to those who don't do work in the field. Accuracy is an empirical question, and it's been answered. Are IQ tests perfectly accurate. No way. Are they accurate enough to be of some practical use. For sure. So much so that I think testing in general and IQ testing specifically has been psychology's only real contribution to humanity (whatever our second place contribution is, it pales in comparison).

So the kid with an 85 IQ, which causes him to score in the 8% on the SAT should have the same opportunity to attend an elite public school as the kid with the 130 who scores in the 95%?

What if the 130 were black and the 85 white?

I was told in my Psych 101 class that the second most important contribution was that a black woman became a psychologist sometime in the early 1960s.

When I was teaching 5th grade, I went to my principal (remember, she's your "pal"!) and told here that I had a kid who was clearly "retarded" in my class and that he either needed to be in the special education class or to recieve help I could not give him (I was not trained in that specialty).

First, the principal was utterly shocked at my use of the word "retarded." I was told "we use the term 'learning impaired!'" Ah, yes...and I can call up down and down up...does it mean airplanes can fly through the center of the planet?

In any case, the child was operating at about the level of (my guess...I am not expert and could not even adequtely test him as I did the other kids), at best, about Kindergarten. I simply had to leave him behind. I had no choice. I could not address his needs and continue teaching the other kids at the same time. The principal (and this boy's mother) were furious at this. I was asked by both to "slow down" the rest of the class so he could "catch up." When I told the principal, he is not going to "catch up" and that I didn't have the skills to deal with his problems, her reply was "do the best you can."

I did. I gave him coloring and other busy work while I moved on with the other kids.

Did I mention I was eventually fired from this job?

Tokie

Zep

4th October 2007, 06:45 AM

I warn you that I would give any Vogon a run for his money...I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

Silly is as silly does.I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

Oh, of course you were! Whenever I, as a non-IT (that's what we call it here) professional run across someone on the interwebby who does work in IT, they simply LOVE to tell me how much better at computery stuff they are than am I! Brag away! If you actually work in that industry, I hope to Gaia you ARE much better'n me! It's always a curiosity to me though, that none of these folks seem to be better doctors or lawyers or plumbers...or better at my job than me....I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

And I love to projectile vomit. It's a marvelous way to cleanse the body of toxins.I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

You haven't earned more than a template response, because you still haven't got a clue. ;)

Jeff Corey

4th October 2007, 07:22 AM

...I think testing in general and IQ testing specifically has been psychology's only real contribution to humanity (whatever our second place contribution is, it pales in comparison)...
I guess you are unfamiliar with the areas termed "applied behavior analysis" or "behavior therapy". I've had many students who have made important contributions to the lives of developmentally disabled and autistic children and adults. Or is this a case of only having a hammer, so everything looks like a nail?
And as to your later statement that from 0 to 25% of IQ variation is due to the environment, hows abouts a reference. And not Cyril Burt or Phillipe Ruston.

Professor Yaffle

4th October 2007, 07:42 AM

Surely its not the case that the genetic and environmental contributions to intelligence are the same in all environments. I'm sure there are some covariance effects. Eg high heritibility in higher socio economic grous, but very low heritibility in the impoverished environments of children rised in poverty.

Admitedly its a long time since I read about this, but am I roughly correct?

ImaginalDisc

4th October 2007, 08:46 AM

bpesta22,

I really do believe children with low IQ scores and high IQ scores should have the same academic opportunities, just as I believe tall students and short students should have the same basketball opportunities, and both weak and strong students should have the same opportunities to participate in Greco-Roman wrestling.

Acceptance into institutions of higher learning is based on academic merit, and standardized academic aptitude test scores. While the smarter students clearly have an advantage, there is no substitute for hard work and good teachers. Using IQ scores to decide whether students should even be educated in the first place is the essence of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In my opinion, the point of educating children is to equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to engage in whatever field they choose in adulthood, and to give them more choices than they would otherwise have.

Refusing to educate the students with low IQ scores serves no one's interests. Education is not a zero-sum game where "smart" students are harmed if "dumb" students are taught. Even if IQ scores were an accurate measure of intelligence, intelligence no more assures academic success than strength assures athletic success.

Tokenconservative

5th October 2007, 04:57 AM

I don't doubt that for a minute, from you! :rolleyes:

You haven't earned more than a template response, because you still haven't got a clue. ;)

Or, perhaps I've taxed your intellect to the breaking point.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

5th October 2007, 05:18 AM

bpesta22,

Refusing to educate the students with low IQ scores serves no one's interests. Education is not a zero-sum game where "smart" students are harmed if "dumb" students are taught. Even if IQ scores were an accurate measure of intelligence, intelligence no more assures academic success than strength assures athletic success.

I assume you are being sardonic and facetious with the other bits in here....I know that I sucked at basketball and wrestling, had no interest in either (pretty heterosexual so that whole rolling around on the ground with another sweaty guy never much appealed to me) so I'd hate to think a school team would be foreced to put me on the team.

This last is an ideal. This is not the way it works in American public schools (mostly), though the schools will eagerly tell you otherwise, when they turn their "public" Janus-face to you.

The reality is that the schools (mostly) have standing orders to teach to the lowest common denominator. Yes, yes...it all sounds like so much hoary repitition of a cliche, but that does not change its reality. The schools are charged with educating ALL American kids (including those who are, in actual fact, NOT Americans). And more importantly to them, they want to APPEAR to be educating all. Each generation of teachers taught in this way (since circa mid-60s), then teaches their students in this way until today, a standard 10th grade English class looks very much like a 6th grade English class did circa 1940. Seriously. I subbed in a 10th grade Lit class (15-16 yr-olds) a year or two ago where the student's "big" (semester end) project was their choice to either "draw/color a picture" of a scene from Hamlet, or work the lines from same into a Hip Hop/Rap "song" to be performed in front of the class.

No, smart kids will not be harmed by the teaching of dumb kids...elsewhere. But they will be harmed when a teacher is forced to level all students in a class and not teach beyond the slowest student's ability. That leaves smart kids to flounder about, bored stiff, daydreaming and often this is reflected in lowered grades for these kids. This was going on when I was in middle and high school in the 70s, and was apparently so successful that it continues today.

Yes, yes...it may "damage" the "self-esteem" of the dumb kids and truly will damage kids who aren't "dummies" but are identified as such by the best possible analysts: public school teachers. But the whole self-esteem bit (protecting that of the teachers, I mean) is why our schools suck so badly, anyway.

Of course that's just unedjamacated (yeah), Evangelical (um...no), dumb old Tokie saying that. Which is why I subbed for an AP English class this week (11th 12 grade--17-18 yr-olds) who were unable to effectively analyze a couple of poems because of their lack of knowledge about some pretty basic, cultural myths and symbols. One student even told me after class "you are way better than our regular teacher; she doesn't know any of this history and mythology stuff." How does one lead the analysis of literature not on the Oprah list at what is supposed to be the equivalent of "college level" without a pretty solid understanding of this stuff?

Tokie

ImaginalDisc

5th October 2007, 07:08 AM

Tokenconservative

5th October 2007, 08:12 AM

You are succumbing to a "Golden Age" fallacy. In the past, we educated a smaller portion of students. Today we educate all students with the goal of having them achieve a standard high school diploma. We educate the most academically successful, the least, and the profoundly mentally henadicapped. Educational systems in the 1950's, to pick a baseline, where far less ambitious.

Source (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf)

The Census Bureau maintains that educational attainment has steadily improved.

As you have unfailingly demonstrated an aversion to reading, I'll post the pretty picture here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6958470639c0a0aab.jpg

See? Adults have higher educational attainment now than at any time since 1947. Clearly we are not failing to prepare our children for educational success.

You know what, just to forstall any complaints, here's another pretty picture for you.

Source (http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/695847063b6c553e7.jpg

If you have evidence to present to show that the educational system of the past was better, present it.

I'm not even sure how to appraoch something that's this tenditioius....

The differences between what America was in the 50s and what it is today are so profound, it's likely someone plucked from 1947 to 2007 would not believe that this IS America.

Running raw numbers of "how many" people graduated high school or got a college degree in 1947 and comparing those raw numbers to those who do the same today...you see nothing wrong with that?

If you don't, I guess nothing I can say with words or pretty pitchurs is likely to...enlighten you.

You know, I'll bet that if you get the raw numbers of say...buggy whips produced in say, 1870, and compare them to the raw numbers of buggy whips produced in say...2007, you'll find that the buggy whip manufacturers in 1870s were apparently much better businessmen than are those who make those thing today!

Tokie

ImaginalDisc

5th October 2007, 08:15 AM

I'm not even sure how to appraoch something that's this tenditioius....

The differences between what America was in the 50s and what it is today are so profound, it's likely someone plucked from 1947 to 2007 would not believe that this IS America.

Yes, poor white students were neglected, and minorities were given a substandard education even below that.

Running raw numbers of "how many" people graduated high school or got a college degree in 1947 and comparing those raw numbers to those who do the same today...you see nothing wrong with that?

It's not raw numbers, it's a proportion of the total population.

If you don't, I guess nothing I can say with words or pretty pitchurs is likely to...enlighten you.

Try, because the data clearly show that you're bemoaning a problem which does not exist. The educational system of the past decades was not superior to the present.

bpesta22

5th October 2007, 08:36 AM

ImaginalDisc

5th October 2007, 08:42 AM

Jeff Corey

5th October 2007, 08:50 AM

... "how many" people graduated high school...
It's "graduated from high school". I learned that in high school.

bpesta22

5th October 2007, 08:50 AM

ID

Most of the post was based on my experience teaching-- doesn't generalize to anyone else-- but it's a fact re my experience teaching.

What would constitute a fact for you? My experience is anecdotal-- anecdotes are not proof of anything, but just because it's an anecdote doesn't immediately make it false.

Anyone here teach and feel that education today is superior to what it was in the past?

FWIW, this topic comes up a lot. I can't recall talking to any professor who has disgreed with the statement that education today is weaker than it was years ago.

I could cite articles on the role of g in determining academic success (2 recent ones by Linda Gottfredson), but then someone will claim she's a racist and immediately discard it.

ImaginalDisc

5th October 2007, 08:55 AM

I could cite articles on the role of g in determining academic success (2 recent ones by Linda Gottfredson), but then someone will claim she's a racist and immediately discard it.

Considering she's been a vociferous defender of The Bell Curve despite its lack of scientific merit, what else would you expect? Your proposed source writes frequently about race and intelligence. She is a racist.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2007, 08:55 AM

bpesta22

5th October 2007, 09:07 AM

Considering she's been a vociferous defender of The Bell Curve despite its lack of scientific merit, what else would you expect? Your proposed source writes frequently about race and intelligence. She is a racist.

Oh gawd, I guess that makes me a racist too. The bell curve's been vindicated in the academic literature. The results in it are well replicated (not too much in the bell curve was even new, in terms of data). Obviously, the claim that race differences are genetic is controversial, but the bell curve will stand the test of time as a scientific contribution.

It's amazing too that all these racists get their racist ideas published in the best journals.

The naive empiricists must marginalize the whole field. It's the only way to throw out 100 years worth of data, yet still think their world view is correct.

Zep

5th October 2007, 02:58 PM

Close.Or, perhaps I've taxed your intellect to the breaking waking point.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

5th October 2007, 04:30 PM

It's "graduated from high school". I learned that in high school.

Ah.

Brilliant riposte that neatly puts paid to every thing I've said in here.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

5th October 2007, 04:37 PM

As a teacher of yutes, I assert that a college degree today is worth-- maybe-- what a highschool diploma was in the 1950s. We've dumbed down our curriculum so much, it frankly embarasses me. Worse, grade inflation now makes a B pretty close to a D decades ago.

Anyone here teach at a large urban university-- share your experience?

The bimodal distribution of ability is amazing. About half the class doesn't merit being there and will be lost if you teach college level. The other half do belong and are bored / lose out when you teach to the LCD.

The hardest thing about teaching for me is the vast difference in ability from student to student.

I think the philosophy today-- everyone deserves a college education-- is moral and reasonable, but unfortunately ignores nature (our cruel master) which dictates that no 85 will ever be a rocket scientist. It might be the right thing to do, but then don't scratch your head after when "education" results in people being even more spread out in terms of achievement, based only on their ability before they opened a book.

And yet, apologists and defenders such as ID will shriek out of the woodwork anytime you point up these obvious facts.

A TEACHER of circa 1950 was equivalent to many liberal arts profs of today. I have a collection of textbooks ranging from the 1870s to today, and just the difference in language is astounding...they actually expected kids as young as 10 or 12 "back in the day" to be able to read "big woids."

Not only that, a history or geography or English textbook did not spoon feed the kids OR the teacher anything. It presented the information and the TEACHER was expected to come up with homework, papers and other tasks based on what the student was supposed to have read.

You've seen teacher editions...do they leave ANYthing up to you?

My experience as a 5th grade teacher showed me very clearly (and yes, it is anecdotal and yes, it was only that one school--another common defense of schools, because of course parents don't have any experience with the school across town...) that I as a teacher was NOT to allow the kids to progress beyond a certain point.

My experiences as a sub are equally dismal...10th grade English lit students drawing pitchurs and putting Willie S to a Hip Hop beat as a final paper?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

5th October 2007, 04:38 PM

Close.

Well that's good, too. You do seem a bit sloe-eyed and drowsy in most of your posts.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

5th October 2007, 04:44 PM

Oh gawd, I guess that makes me a racist too. The bell curve's been vindicated in the academic literature. The results in it are well replicated (not too much in the bell curve was even new, in terms of data). Obviously, the claim that race differences are genetic is controversial, but the bell curve will stand the test of time as a scientific contribution.

It's amazing too that all these racists get their racist ideas published in the best journals.

The naive empiricists must marginalize the whole field. It's the only way to throw out 100 years worth of data, yet still think their world view is correct.

Careful Pest...you and I agree on much.

My own reading of The Bell Curve and ABOUT it suggests that it is villified not because of its science or because it is actually racist, but only because of its substantial and substantiated findings, which tend to ruffle PC feathers.

You are in good company. I've been tagged as a RAAACCCIIISSSTTTTT!!!! as well. Why? Because I favor enforcement of our immigration laws and booting the kids of illegals out of our "free" schools and because I've made the RAAACCCIIISSSTTT observation that schools with 70- 90% "Hispanic" (PC for "Illegal Aliens from Latin countries") populations, tend to (shocker!) do worse on the whole in my satate's standardized testing.

Tokie

Tokie

LostAngeles

5th October 2007, 05:57 PM

... "Hispanic" (PC for "Illegal Aliens from Latin countries") populations,...

I will do the math homework for the person that can explain to me how this phrase, apparently characterizing an entire population as being illegal immigrants, is not racist.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2007, 06:32 PM

Ah.

Brilliant riposte that neatly puts paid to every thing I've said in here.

Tokie
No, it just illustrated that my students, who graduated from high school much more recently than you claim to have, exhibit superior competence compared to yours.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2007, 06:36 PM

I will do the math homework for the person that can explain to me how this phrase, apparently characterizing an entire population as being illegal immigrants, is not racist.
Maybe you explain to some people what "correlation does not imply causation" means.
That's more math tutoring than math homework, though.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

5th October 2007, 07:32 PM

Hindmost

5th October 2007, 07:38 PM

As a teacher of yutes, I assert that a college degree today is worth-- maybe-- what a highschool diploma was in the 1950s. We've dumbed down our curriculum so much, it frankly embarasses me. Worse, grade inflation now makes a B pretty close to a D decades ago.

Anyone here teach at a large urban university-- share your experience?

The bimodal distribution of ability is amazing. About half the class doesn't merit being there and will be lost if you teach college level. The other half do belong and are bored / lose out when you teach to the LCD.

The hardest thing about teaching for me is the vast difference in ability from student to student.

I think the philosophy today-- everyone deserves a college education-- is moral and reasonable, but unfortunately ignores nature (our cruel master) which dictates that no 85 will ever be a rocket scientist. It might be the right thing to do, but then don't scratch your head after when "education" results in people being even more spread out in terms of achievement, based only on their ability before they opened a book.

I have been curious about grade inflation at the university level...if a B today was truly a D in the past, we are producing graduates that won't be able to compete in the global markets. I believe that college costs and operations have turned students into commodities over the years. In the past, professors didn't care if the student passed or failed and gave the appropriate grade. Now it seems that professors are under pressure to keep students enrolled to keep the revenue stream. I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.

glenn

Jeff Corey

5th October 2007, 08:31 PM

Zep

6th October 2007, 12:58 AM

Well that's good, too. You do seem a bit sloe-eyed and drowsy in most of your posts.

TokieI have to slow down to your pace and level, if that's what you mean.

Frankly, I'd rather watch and learn from people who know what they're talking about and can disagree reasonably without resorting to childish tantrums and inanely childish repetition, even when their views are not in agreement.

You could learn something...

Heh, what am I saying...it's Tokie I'm talking to. :rolleyes:

Tokenconservative

6th October 2007, 05:20 AM

So what conclusion have we reached? Everyone should be given the opportunity to achieve as much education as they desire, but the educational settings need to be customized for individual ability. The most able should not be slowed down by the less able, and the less able should not be expected to graduate from MIT. At the same time, however, the social mixing of people of different abilities is to be encouraged, particularly since intellectual ability is not everything in life.

So what's the problem? I have no idea, but perhaps society simply cannot handle this model.

~~ Paul

This model was in use in public schools prior to about the mid-1960s. Was it entirely fair? No. You had teachers (who were, by the way, better educated then than they are now) deciding on this, but it was not until after about 1965 that they started institutionalizing this with what was called "tracking." At that point, a teacher in 1st or 2nd grade (6-7 years old) would make a decision about each child: is he a "dummy" or smart? Whichever was decided, that would attach to his or her permanent record (yeah, there is such a thing) and follow that student all through school, including when/if he/she moved. In jr. high (what today is called middle school) "dummies" and avg. and smart kids would begin to be seperated out from one another until by high school there were "general" courses that the dummies went through and more advanced courses for the avg. to smart kids.

Now, to be sure, since the pubs have to take all-comers, there are going to be vast disparities between aptitudes, attitudes, upbringing, and yes, intelligence. But having a 1-2nd grade teacher decide, essentially, the life-fate of someone seems, oh...I dunno rilly, rilly stupid?

Back then, of course, one simply did not question the teacher, the principal or the school. It was most often the case, these were the most educated people most people were ever in contact with. Then, more and more Americans became more and more educated and more and more avg. to smart "kids" who were identified as "dummies" in this system said to themselves "they are not doing this to MY kids."

And the schools were forced to change.

So, what the schools have done is, of course, go overboard in the OTHER direction. Since about the mid-80s or so, when the kids who went through this began becoming school-age parents themselves, and unlike their parents and certainly grandparents, raising holy hell down to the school over everything from lunchroom menu to seating charts to yes...QUALITY of education, the schools have had to react.

One would THINK that they would try to change for the better. Instead, they've changed for the worse in their reacation to this backlash. Today, they simply don't recognize ANY difference in ability, aptitude, intelligence, etc. They do not teach to the high middle and low. Instead they teach ONLY to the low. Given, this is largely in response to bitching parents of truly low-intelligence kids--the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But it has also worked out very much in the teachers' favor.

Of course, teachers in here laugh at this. They are attracted to a forum such as this because they are not the norm. Still, none are intellectually honest enough to admit that Ms. Jones down the hall has all the intellectual weight of gossamer. Or that Mr. Smith downstairs should have been forced out of teaching years ago. But the reality is that of the positive feedback loop of America's entire education system: you have kids being poorly educated for the most part. They (typical case) leave the K-12 system barely educated to the equivalent of the 6th grade circa 1940-1950. Nonetheless, many are still able to get into public colleges/unis which, as someone noted, are no longer institutions of higher learning so much as profit-making enterprises that compete and compete HARD for every student for the exact same reasons K-12 schools do so: $$.

But the colleges and unis have to deal with the product K-12 is sending them. Look at any college catalog...get hold of some from say, 1960. Compare the numbers of remedial courses offered. Typically, these course are there just to get the students up to the ability to pass 100/entry-level courses like "the essay" and "the research paper" and beg. math and science classes.

So how is this in the teachers' favor? Well, teachers, typically, graduate from the very lowest levels of their college graduating classes. That's just a fact. So we now have teachers poorly educated in our K-12 system who graduated at the lowest levels in college teaching our kids K-12. In order to survive, they must dumb-down what they teach, graduating kids who are dumbed-down, who go into college; some of them become teachers, already dumbed-down a degree lower than their K-12 teacher; they then, in order to survive, must dumb-down THEIR students...some of whom go on to become...teachers?

This is called a positive feedback loop. And as anyone can see, the more dumbed-down the curricula are, the easier it is for "teachers," who are themselves today the 4th-5th generation of dumbed-down students.

It's really pretty easy to understand once you understand--and admit to--the system as it has existed past about 1965.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

6th October 2007, 05:22 AM

Maybe you explain to some people what "correlation does not imply causation" means.
That's more math tutoring than math homework, though.

Sure. Put that question into an actual ENGLISH sentence, and I'd be happy too.

Mind your syntax, now!

Tokie

Tokenconservative

6th October 2007, 05:32 AM

I will do the math homework for the person that can explain to me how this phrase, apparently characterizing an entire population as being illegal immigrants, is not racist.

Hmmm...I see we have problems with comprehension, as well!

Let me draw a purty pitchur: I am (pretty clearly to anyone with say, a 4th grade reading comprehension ability) identifying the way in which the politically correct pursposely misrepresent "and entire population." I realize that as a freshly-minted "teacher" you have been taught to seperate Americans by a host of issue: skin color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. As a non-bigot, I don't do that. I seperate people as to nationality, though. And what is meant by "Hispanic" among your kind today, is "immigrant (from Latin America/Carib)." When one translates your "immigrant" what one comes up with is "ILLEGAL immigrant."

Now, many Americans identify themselves as "Hispanic." Many like several of my neighbors are, like me with my accidental Irish-German background, are simply Americans whose heritage happens to be Spanish/Latin. Like me, they speak English, not Spanish (in fact, my neighbor to the north who works in construction complains bitterly about the *racial epithet deleted so Tokie won't get banned* who look down their nose at him because "I have the brown skin but don't speak a word of Spanish because--I'm an American!"--yes, that's an example of one: please feel to run around screaming about it now. Oh...same issue with my neighbor to the south, whose family came here in the early 1500s from Spain. He also does not speak Spanish).

What the left and compromised conservatives actually MEAN today when they say "Hispanic" is "illegal alien." And that's exactly what YOU mean LA.

So now I'm confused...It's TOKIE who is the racist because he identifies people according to nationality, not LA, who identifies people according to the color of their skin.

Ah. I see.

Tokie

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

6th October 2007, 09:30 AM

One would THINK that they would try to change for the better. Instead, they've changed for the worse in their reacation to this backlash. Today, they simply don't recognize ANY difference in ability, aptitude, intelligence, etc. They do not teach to the high middle and low. Instead they teach ONLY to the low. Given, this is largely in response to bitching parents of truly low-intelligence kids--the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But it has also worked out very much in the teachers' favor.
This may be true in some school systems you've witnessed, but it is not true in my school system. There are basic and advanced classes in subjects beginning around the 5th grade. This becomes standard practice for every subject starting in 9th grade, where there are as many as three different levels for certain courses. There are also dozens of half-credit courses geared to specific interests, and approximately 40 after-school clubs.

Then there is the question of special education students, of which we have two. These students are mainstreamed, at the parent's discretion, to the extent possible. However, the classes are certainly not dumbed down to accommodate them. Instead, their particular assignments and homework are modified. The high school offers remedial courses.

I will grant you that I live in a wealthy town and share a high school district with an adjacent wealthy town. However, I think you are generalizing a bit.

Here is my thought on the subject, although it is of no particular use: Prior to the 1970s, kids had more options for what to do with their lives: finish high school, go to college, work the family farm, join the family business, apprentice to a tradesman, become a housewife, become a domestic, stay in a sheltered family life. Nowadays everyone is expected to finish high school and go to college. One piece of evidence for this expectation is standardized testing. If those many options were the expectation, there would be no point to standardized testing, but now everyone is standardized. However, a standardized life path can only guarantee "success" if it is geared to a lower common denominator.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

6th October 2007, 09:40 AM

... observation that schools with 70- 90% "Hispanic" (PC for "Illegal Aliens from Latin countries") populations, tend to (shocker!) do worse on the whole in my satate's standardized testing.
You appear to be implying here that there are schools with 70--90% illegal Latins. Is that the case?

What the left and compromised conservatives actually MEAN today when they say "Hispanic" is "illegal alien." And that's exactly what YOU mean LA.
I really dislike it when a poster goes all armchair psychologist. You do not know what LA means when she says "Hispanic," so why spew such nonsense?

So now I'm confused...It's TOKIE who is the racist because he identifies people according to nationality, not LA, who identifies people according to the color of their skin.
But you just said that LA is identifying people according to their immigration status. What does that have to do with the color of their skin? Perhaps you meant to say '... "Hispanic" is "illegal alien of Hispanic origin."' Even if that is what LA meant, which I doubt, she would be identifying people by their background, not skin color.

~~ Paul

LostAngeles

6th October 2007, 03:10 PM

Hmmm...I see we have problems with comprehension, as well!

Let me draw a purty pitchur: I am (pretty clearly to anyone with say, a 4th grade reading comprehension ability) identifying the way in which the politically correct pursposely misrepresent "and entire population." I realize that as a freshly-minted "teacher" you have been taught to seperate Americans by a host of issue: skin color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. As a non-bigot, I don't do that. I seperate people as to nationality, though. And what is meant by "Hispanic" among your kind today, is "immigrant (from Latin America/Carib)." When one translates your "immigrant" what one comes up with is "ILLEGAL immigrant."

Now, many Americans identify themselves as "Hispanic." Many like several of my neighbors are, like me with my accidental Irish-German background, are simply Americans whose heritage happens to be Spanish/Latin. Like me, they speak English, not Spanish (in fact, my neighbor to the north who works in construction complains bitterly about the *racial epithet deleted so Tokie won't get banned* who look down their nose at him because "I have the brown skin but don't speak a word of Spanish because--I'm an American!"--yes, that's an example of one: please feel to run around screaming about it now. Oh...same issue with my neighbor to the south, whose family came here in the early 1500s from Spain. He also does not speak Spanish).

What the left and compromised conservatives actually MEAN today when they say "Hispanic" is "illegal alien." And that's exactly what YOU mean LA.

So now I'm confused...It's TOKIE who is the racist because he identifies people according to nationality, not LA, who identifies people according to the color of their skin.

Ah. I see.

Tokie

Well now, this makes absolutely no sense. You said:

... "Hispanic" (PC for "Illegal Aliens from Latin countries") ...

How does that turn into me being racist and translating, "Hispanic," into, "Illegal Alien?" How did you assume that I identify people according to the color of their skin by my response of:

I will do the math homework for the person that can explain to me how this phrase, apparently characterizing an entire population as being illegal immigrants, is not racist.

In fact, how, from that response, do you know anything of how I identify people?

Or my politics?

You know, the funny thing is, since I moved here, I've had the same problem as your neighbor.

And I'm not even Hispanic.

ZirconBlue

6th October 2007, 07:45 PM

I have been curious about grade inflation at the university level...if a B today was truly a D in the past, we are producing graduates that won't be able to compete in the global markets.

I, too, am curious. If our universities are offering such shoddy education, then why are so many foreign (especially Asian) students coming to the US for college educations?

Is there any evidence for this alleged grade inflation at the University level?

Lonewulf

6th October 2007, 09:01 PM

Hindmost

6th October 2007, 09:33 PM

All I have to say is this: In order to be even accepted into the University of Heidelberg here in Germany, I have to actually have the equivalent of German high school, which seems to teach the same things as the beginning courses in American colleges.

Too broad of a stroke...depends on the college and the high school in the US. Top level colleges don't have easy beginning courses and only accept top level students...there are about 2000 4-year colleges and universities in the states and a similar number of 2-year institutions. Some colleges just require a checkbook to get in; some require the student to be able to convert lead into gold.

glenn

Lonewulf

6th October 2007, 09:36 PM

Too broad of a stroke...depends on the college and the high school in the US. Top level colleges don't have easy beginning courses and only accept top level students...there are about 2000 4-year colleges and universities in the states and a similar number of 2-year institutions. Some colleges just require a checkbook to get in; some require the student to be able to convert lead into gold.

glenn
Well, that's part of why it was the only thing I'd say. I really haven't bet on any horse in this debate.

However, it's scared me how many genuinely truly uneducated people I've run into, but that's subject to confirmation bias, and many of them probably dropped out of advanced education anyways.

Hindmost

6th October 2007, 09:51 PM

I, too, am curious. If our universities are offering such shoddy education, then why are so many foreign (especially Asian) students coming to the US for college educations?

Is there any evidence for this alleged grade inflation at the University level?

Found some interesting links...however, it would take a fair amount of study.

http://gradeinflation.com/

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/sub.asp?key=245&subkey=576

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/gi.htm

http://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingresources/articles/gradeinflation.html

This last link lists probable causes...which include the desire to keep students sending in checks.

One site--not listed here-- indicated higher SAT scores for students entering the university as a probable cause of the increase in grades...however, the SAT has been dumbed down for quite some time now and I don't think it would be a good indication.

In a USA today article..which would not be a good source in my opinion...indicated that some universities posted average grades given in courses in an effort to stop the inflation problem. That policy lead to students to take the classes that had high grades listed as they thought they would be easy. Very disappointing. I took classes I was interested in and didn't think about how difficult they would be.

glenn

JoeEllison

6th October 2007, 09:56 PM

Two quick points:

Someone on this thread is a racist and a bigot, although I can't name names.

That same person who must remain nameless doesn't have a single clue about education in America.

Earthborn

7th October 2007, 09:47 AM

If I get more time, I'll post some detail: but, the flynn effect is in crisis Please do so, and please explain what you mean with "the Flynn effect is in crisis".

My opinion would be irrelevant were it not based on what the science says. The consensus is that 0-25% of IQ is caused by the environment (closer to 25 when the kid is young, closer to zero as that same kid grows older, albeit in the same environment!). For genes, it's between 50-75%.You like to say things like that a lot. But you never seem to bother to explain how anyone could come up with such figures, or who did. Please do so.

I'm not up on this stuff, but you seem to be. I'm curious (and I don't know where you sit on the nature vs. nurture argument): those who say IQ is all or mostly "environment" seem to be saying that everything about us from hair and eye color to whether we will be an alky or die of colon cancer is largely hardwired into us genetically...everything BUT IQ?

How can this be?A good biologist would say that nothing is hardwired genetically, but that all of an organism's phenotype is the result of interaction between the genes and environment.

bpesta22

7th October 2007, 10:18 AM

Please do so, and please explain what you mean with "the Flynn effect is in crisis".

You like to say things like that a lot. But you never seem to bother to explain how anyone could come up with such figures, or who did. Please do so.

A good biologist would say that nothing is hardwired genetically, but that all of an organism's phenotype is the result of interaction between the genes and environment.

Ok, but first tell me who I can't cite because all here will discredit them w/o looking at what they read since everyone knows they are racist?

bpesta22

7th October 2007, 10:29 AM

Secular declines in cognitive test scores: A reversal of the Flynn Effect

Thomas W. Teasdalea, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and David R. Owenb
aDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
bDepartment of Psychology, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, United States
Received 13 June 2006; revised 30 January 2007; accepted 30 January 2007. Available online 2 March 2007.

Abstract

Scores on cognitive tests have been very widely reported to have increased through the decades of the last century, a generational phenomenon termed the ‘Flynn Effect’ since it was most comprehensively documented by James Flynn in the 1980's. There has, however, been very little evidence concerning any continuity of the effect specifically into the present century. We here report data from a population, namely young adult males in Denmark, showing that whereas there were modest increases between 1988 and 1998 in scores on a battery of four cognitive tests–these constituting a diminishing continuation of a trend documented back to the late 1950's–scores on all four tests declined between 1998 and 2003/2004. For two of the tests, levels fell to below those of 1988. Across all tests, the decrease in the 5/6 year period corresponds to approximately 1.5 IQ points, very close to the net gain between 1988 and 1998. The declines between 1998 and 2003/4 appeared amongst both men pursuing higher academic education and those not doing so.

The end of the Flynn effect?

A study of secular trends in mean intelligence test scores of Norwegian conscripts during half a century

Jon Martin Sundeta, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Dag G. Barlaugb and Tore M. Torjussenb
aInstitute of Psychology, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1094, Blindern N-317 Oslo, Norway
bPsychological Services, Norwegian Armed Forces, Norway
Received 22 October 2003; revised 5 April 2004; accepted 8 June 2004. Available online 18 August 2004.

Abstract

The present paper reports secular trends in the mean scores of a language, mathematics, and a Raven-like test together with a combined general ability (GA) score among Norwegian (male) conscripts tested from the mid 1950s to 2002 (birth cohorts ≈1935–1984). Secular gains in standing height (indicating improved nutrition and health care) were also investigated. Substantial gains in GA were apparent from the mid 1950s (test years) to the end 1960s–early 1970s, followed by a decreasing gain rate and a complete stop from the mid 1990s. The gains seemed to be mainly caused by decreasing prevalence of low scorers. From the early 1970s, the secular gains in GA were almost exclusively driven by gains on the Raven-like test. However, even the means on this particular test stopped to increase after the mid to late 1990s. It is concluded that the Flynn effect may have come to an end in Norway. Height gains were strongly correlated with intelligence gains until the cessation of height gains in the conscript cohorts towards the end of the 1980s. Contrary to the intelligence gains, the height gains (conscript cohorts 1969–2002) were most pronounced in the upper half of the distribution. Evidence indicating decreasing intercorrelations between tests is reported.

EJ676837
Title: The Secular Rise in IQs: In Estonia, the Flynn Effect Is Not a Jensen Effect.
Authors: Must, Olev; Must, Aasa; Raudik, Vilve
Descriptors: Adolescents; Foreign Countries; Intelligence Quotient; Intelligence Tests; Secondary Education; Secondary School Students
Source: Intelligence, v31 n5 p461-71 2003
Peer-Reviewed: N/A
Publisher: N/A
Publication Date: 2003-00-00
Pages: N/A
Pub Types: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Abstract: Investigated the secular rise in IQ scores over 60 years in 12-to-14-year-old Estonian students using data from the 1930s for 307 students and data from 1997-1998 for 381 students. Results indicate that the secular rise is not occurring on the "g" factor. (SLD)
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A

bpesta22

7th October 2007, 10:34 AM

Dozens of twin, adoption, and family studies have confirmed the high heri-
tability of intellectual and behavioral traits, and even reaction time tasks, within
a race (Bouchard, 1996; Bouchard &Loehlin, 2001; Deary, 2000; Plomin et al.,
2001). Most of these estimates have been calculated on White samples. One study
of 543 pairs of identical and 134 pairs of nonidentical 12-year-old Japanese twins
248
RUSHTON AND JENSEN
Page 15

in Japan reported a substantial heritability of 0.58 for IQ (Lynn &Hattori, 1990).
The hereditarian model views race differences simply as aggregated individual
differences of this sort.

Also relevant to the question of the mean Black–White group differences are
the changes in heritability that occur with increases in age (see Plomin et al.,
2001). The average correlation of IQ between full siblings reared together reaches
.49 in adulthood. The correlation in IQ for siblings reared apart as children is .24,
which increases to .49 in adulthood. This shows that siblings grow more similar
to each other as they age. In genetically unrelated people reared together, such as
adopted children, the correlation for IQ is .25 in childhood but decreases to .01 in
adulthood (McGue et al., 1993). This shows, conversely, that unrelated people
reared together grow less similar over time. Between childhood and adulthood the
influence of the shared home environment on IQ decreases, whereas the effect of
genetic similarity increases.
The diminishing or even vanishing effect of differences due to the shared
home environment can best be understood in terms of three components of
gene–environment correlation and the change in their relative importance during
development (Plomin et al., 1977; Plomin et al., 2001). The passive component of
the gene–environment correlation reflects all those things that happen to the
phenotype, independent of its own characteristics. For example, children of
academically oriented parents may inherit genes for academic ability and also be
exposed (through no effort of their own) to stimulating intellectual environments.
The reactive component of gene–environment correlation results from the reac-
tion of others to the expression of genetically based abilities, as when children
with an unusual curiosity about science are given chemistry sets. The active
component of the gene–environment correlation results from children actively
seeking experiences compatible with their genotypes, for example, going to
science fairs rather than sports events or music concerts. From early childhood to
late adolescence the predominant component of the gene–environment covariance
gradually shifts from passive to reactive to active. The child’s enlarging world is
like a cafeteria in which choices become increasingly biased by genetic factors
(Scarr, 1996; Scarr &McCartney, 1983). As individuals mature they seek out and
even create their own experiential environment.

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:13 PM

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:17 PM

Ok, but first tell me who I can't cite because all here will discredit them w/o looking at what they read since everyone knows they are racist?

LOL!

I asked the same question about "TOOLS OF BIG OIL!!!" to whom I was not allowed to refer in discussion about the religion of Global Warming...got the same answer: crickets.

But let me help: anyone who in any way questions whether the very real differences between culture and even the physical differences between humans with varying heritages have any impact on what we are and what we do.

For example: if you were to reference a book about American basketball players that noted that black players tend to be taller on average than Asian players, this would make both you and the writer (not that you'll find anything like that published anywhere) a.... RAAAACCCCIIIISTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!

Tokie

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:19 PM

Two quick points:

Someone on this thread is a racist and a bigot, although I can't name names.

That same person who must remain nameless doesn't have a single clue about education in America.

Really?

Who?

The second is no biggie..most teachers know nothing about education in America or anywhere else.

But the first is probably a violation of the TOS in here. Since you seem pretty certain, I'd suggest contacting the mods, presenting your case for this with some quotes from this person's posts clearly demonstrating their racism.

This sort of forum really is no place for racists.

Tokie

LostAngeles

7th October 2007, 03:19 PM

LOL!

I asked the same question about "TOOLS OF BIG OIL!!!" to whom I was not allowed to refer in discussion about the religion of Global Warming...got the same answer: crickets.

But let me help: anyone who in any way questions whether the very real differences between culture and even the physical differences between humans with varying heritages have any impact on what we are and what we do.

For example: if you were to reference a book about American basketball players that noted that black players tend to be taller on average than Asian players, this would make both you and the writer (not that you'll find anything like that published anywhere) a.... RAAAACCCCIIIISTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!

Tokie

If anyone would like to see how well Tokie responded to requests for evidence and what really happened:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92715

Lonewulf

7th October 2007, 03:26 PM

Actually, our science, engineering, law and medical schools continue to offer exemplary educations.

It's in the liberal arts and "soft" sciences where it's really fallen apart. Not that anyone with half a brain would bother getting a degree in any of these these days.

Tokie
I was one semester away from getting an associates in Liberal Arts in Del Mar College, before transferring to Heidelberg University in Germany.

Few comments.

1) Liberal Arts often involve classes you would otherwise have to take with any type of degree.
2) Can you please name me any courses offered by Liberal Arts that are useless?

Here's a list of the classes I took:

--Humanities
--Regional Geography
--American History 1301 (first recorded accounts up until the 1800's, I believe)
--American History 1302 (1800's to modern day)
--Sociology
--College Algebra and various other mathematics courses
--American Government 1301
--Introduction to Astronomy
--Introduction to Philosophy

At least, those are the courses I can remember. I'd have to look at my transcripts to list them all out.

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:29 PM

Well now, this makes absolutely no sense. You said:

How does that turn into me being racist and translating, "Hispanic," into, "Illegal Alien?" How did you assume that I identify people according to the color of their skin by my response of:

In fact, how, from that response, do you know anything of how I identify people?

Or my politics?

You know, the funny thing is, since I moved here, I've had the same problem as your neighbor.

And I'm not even Hispanic.

It's quite simple in context (and easily taken out of context, which is simply another Playbook tactic).

Today, in the media, on the univ. campus, and anywhere else where the far-left holds sway, there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." In fact, you won't find that term in common use in most US newspapers nor will you find it in use on most forms of electronic news (now you'll run out and get a quip from O'Reilly or Savage, or some Wash Post commentary using it, because like most libs, you have no understanding of the distinction between "news" and "opinion" in the press...so be it). The word has clearly gone out that purveyors of "news" are to use the term "Hispanic" in place of "illegal alien of Latin origins."

For at least the past three decades, the term "Hispanic" has been used in the US to refer to those of Latin American and Mexican heritage who live here. This was the term that won out over some others (Chicano Latino, for example) as this group of Americans, led by liberals, attempted to seperate itself from "WASP" America and claim a seperate identify from other "racial" and ethnic minorities.

Today, it is used nearly exclusively to lump everyone of Mex/Lat. Amer. heritage, whether thier ancestors got here 500 years ago, or just crossed the border stuffed into an Econoline with 36 other "Hispanics."

If I were a Hispanic American, this would really piss me off. It does my one neighbor. The other seems to just shrug it off.

Yes, but my neighbor IS Hispanic and it apparently angers him that these illegals not only expect him to speak a foreign language, but look down their noses at him because he does not.

I hope this has cleared things up for you. Now, go back to reading your People's Daily.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:31 PM

I was one semester away from getting an associates in Liberal Arts in Del Mar College, before transferring to Heidelberg University in Germany.

Few comments.

1) Liberal Arts often involve classes you would otherwise have to take with any type of degree.
2) Can you please name me any courses offered by Liberal Arts that are useless?

Here's a list of the classes I took:

--Humanities
--Regional Geography
--American History 1301 (first recorded accounts up until the 1800's, I believe)
--American History 1302 (1800's to modern day)
--Sociology
--College Algebra and various other mathematics courses
--American Government 1301
--Introduction to Astronomy
--Introduction to Philosophy

At least, those are the courses I can remember. I'd have to look at my transcripts to list them all out.

You are misunderstanding what I said, or I was not clear:

A good, solid background in all the humanities is a good idea for anyone and courses in the core of these should continue to be required by any good college.

A DEGREE in the liberal arts or "soft" sciences, today is virtually valueless in the American economy is what I am saying.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:32 PM

If anyone would like to see how well Tokie responded to requests for evidence and what really happened:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92715

"Dr." Kitten put me on ignore after I started, quite rightly, putting those quotes there.

But not to fear: I've picked up another stalker!

Tokie

LostAngeles

7th October 2007, 03:33 PM

It's quite simple in context (and easily taken out of context, which is simply another Playbook tactic).

Today, in the media, on the univ. campus, and anywhere else where the far-left holds sway, there is no such thing as an "illegal alien." In fact, you won't find that term in common use in most US newspapers nor will you find it in use on most forms of electronic news (now you'll run out and get a quip from O'Reilly or Savage, or some Wash Post commentary using it, because like most libs, you have no understanding of the distinction between "news" and "opinion" in the press...so be it). The word has clearly gone out that purveyors of "news" are to use the term "Hispanic" in place of "illegal alien of Latin origins."

For at least the past three decades, the term "Hispanic" has been used in the US to refer to those of Latin American and Mexican heritage who live here. This was the term that won out over some others (Chicano Latino, for example) as this group of Americans, led by liberals, attempted to seperate itself from "WASP" America and claim a seperate identify from other "racial" and ethnic minorities.

Today, it is used nearly exclusively to lump everyone of Mex/Lat. Amer. heritage, whether thier ancestors got here 500 years ago, or just crossed the border stuffed into an Econoline with 36 other "Hispanics."

If I were a Hispanic American, this would really piss me off. It does my one neighbor. The other seems to just shrug it off.

Yes, but my neighbor IS Hispanic and it apparently angers him that these illegals not only expect him to speak a foreign language, but look down their noses at him because he does not.

I hope this has cleared things up for you. Now, go back to reading your People's Daily.

Tokie

That doesn't explain how I'm apparently the racist here.

Also, if the immigrants are coming from Latin American countries, like the ancestors of the Hispanics already here, how are the immigrants not also Hispanic? Why does it matter when the ancestors got here when the term refers to the country of the person's ancestors.

BTW: Never even seen or heard of People's Daily.

Lonewulf

7th October 2007, 03:33 PM

You are misunderstanding what I said, or I was not clear:

A good, solid background in all the humanities is a good idea for anyone and courses in the core of these should continue to be required by any good college.

A DEGREE in the liberal arts or "soft" sciences, today is virtually valueless in the American economy is what I am saying.

Tokie

I almost got my Associates. I'm not entirely sure you can get a Bachelor's in Liberal Arts, and I really doubt that they have a Master's or Ph.D. :D

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:37 PM

I almost got my Associates. I'm not entirely sure you can get a Bachelor's in Liberal Arts, and I really doubt that they have a Master's or Ph.D. :D

Hmmm...I'm not sure now, whether I am unclear or you are obtuse.

I did not say a degree in Liberal Arts.

At least I hope I did not. I said a degree in ONE OF THE liberal arts: English, History, etc.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:40 PM

That doesn't explain how I'm apparently the racist here.

Also, if the immigrants are coming from Latin American countries, like the ancestors of the Hispanics already here, how are the immigrants not also Hispanic? Why does it matter when the ancestors got here when the term refers to the country of the person's ancestors.

BTW: Never even seen or heard of People's Daily.

Your parsing of words aside, as I explained (or thought I did) the media (a pervasive force in America) is no longer making the distinction between those here illegally, and those who are legal residents or citizens of this country and who are also "Hispanic." It is now a catchall phrase replacing the cumbersome "undocumented workers" and the more accurate "illegal alien."

You seem relatively bright LA...why is this so hard for you to "get"? Do you simply not believe that the "news" media play with language, their stock in trade, after all, to slant the news in the direction they like?

Tokie

Lonewulf

7th October 2007, 03:41 PM

Hmmm...I'm not sure now, whether I am unclear or you are obtuse.

I did not say a degree in Liberal Arts.

At least I hope I did not. I said a degree in ONE OF THE liberal arts: English, History, etc.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Apparently, you really were pretty unclear. Glad that's cleared up, though.

History and English may not have a wealth of jobs available once you get the degree, but that does not make those fields useless or undesirable. I would rather not live in a society with no extensive study of history or language.

For instance, an english major might have made your point far more clearly and concisely, and saved you the effort of having to repeat it. ;)

LostAngeles

7th October 2007, 03:44 PM

Your parsing of words aside, as I explained (or thought I did) the media (a pervasive force in America) is no longer making the distinction between those here illegally, and those who are legal residents or citizens of this country and who are also "Hispanic." It is now a catchall phrase replacing the cumbersome "undocumented workers" and the more accurate "illegal alien."

You seem relatively bright LA...why is this so hard for you to "get"? Do you simply not believe that the "news" media play with language, their stock in trade, after all, to slant the news in the direction they like?

Tokie

I just don't see any evidence for what you claim. I still hear, "undocumented," which is fine since there are many, many undocumented Chinese here also (to name another group).

Much like I don't see how it makes me the apparent racist here.

Keep trying.

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 03:48 PM

I just don't see any evidence for what you claim. I still hear, "undocumented," which is fine since there are many, many undocumented Chinese here also (to name another group).

Much like I don't see how it makes me the apparent racist here.

Keep trying.

Of course you still here it, but not for long. It's being replaced by "Hispanic" and when American talk about the illegal alien problem, it's not Chinese illegals who come here, blend in and eventually become Americans.

It's the other kind. Do you know where, during the last presidential election in Mexico the largest election HQ was located?

Care to guess?

Tokie

LostAngeles

7th October 2007, 03:52 PM

Of course you still here it, but not for long. It's being replaced by "Hispanic" and when American talk about the illegal alien problem, it's not Chinese illegals who come here, blend in and eventually become Americans.

It's the other kind. Do you know where, during the last presidential election in Mexico the largest election HQ was located?

Care to guess?

Tokie

Care to provide evidence (links to news stories will more than suffice) or explain your earlier insinuations of racism?

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 04:01 PM

Care to provide evidence (links to news stories will more than suffice) or explain your earlier insinuations of racism?

No, I don't provide links...why would I catalog links to news stories from what, a year ago?

Do you do that?

Are you insane?

What insinuations of racisim? Did I call you a racist as you and others have openly bellowed at me in here? If so, you'll have to refresh my memory.

Tokie

LostAngeles

7th October 2007, 04:07 PM

No, I don't provide links...why would I catalog links to news stories from what, a year ago?

Do you do that?

Are you insane?

Your google-fu is weak?

What insinuations of racisim? Did I call you a racist as you and others have openly bellowed at me in here? If so, you'll have to refresh my memory.

Tokie

Have a read. I mean you responded to my response to that and yet failed to address it.

Hmmm...I see we have problems with comprehension, as well!

Let me draw a purty pitchur: I am (pretty clearly to anyone with say, a 4th grade reading comprehension ability) identifying the way in which the politically correct pursposely misrepresent "and entire population." I realize that as a freshly-minted "teacher" you have been taught to seperate Americans by a host of issue: skin color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. As a non-bigot, I don't do that. I seperate people as to nationality, though. And what is meant by "Hispanic" among your kind today, is "immigrant (from Latin America/Carib)." When one translates your "immigrant" what one comes up with is "ILLEGAL immigrant."

Now, many Americans identify themselves as "Hispanic." Many like several of my neighbors are, like me with my accidental Irish-German background, are simply Americans whose heritage happens to be Spanish/Latin. Like me, they speak English, not Spanish (in fact, my neighbor to the north who works in construction complains bitterly about the *racial epithet deleted so Tokie won't get banned* who look down their nose at him because "I have the brown skin but don't speak a word of Spanish because--I'm an American!"--yes, that's an example of one: please feel to run around screaming about it now. Oh...same issue with my neighbor to the south, whose family came here in the early 1500s from Spain. He also does not speak Spanish).

What the left and compromised conservatives actually MEAN today when they say "Hispanic" is "illegal alien." And that's exactly what YOU mean LA.

So now I'm confused...It's TOKIE who is the racist because he identifies people according to nationality, not LA, who identifies people according to the color of their skin.

Ah. I see.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 04:09 PM

Your google-fu is weak?
Have a read. I mean you responded to my response to that and yet failed to address it.

Hmmm...you don't know the difference between a racist and a bigot, do you?

How about this: is "prejudice" bad?

Tokie

bpesta22

7th October 2007, 04:15 PM

Perhaps the notion of grade inflation is just grumpy old people complaining about kids today (my gpa walked up hill both ways to school).

My undergraduate was a 3.3. What I see getting much higher than that today still gives me the strong perception that degrees today aren't what they used to be (I had an MBA student-- international but still, this a graduate business degree-- ask me what the IRS was. I had a human resource mangement major in an upper level class ask me what the initials HR meant). All anecdotes though and I see there's some data above suggesting it's not true.

I need to do some research on it, but I'm open to the possibility-- though still skeptical-- that grade inflation is just an complaint from every generation's old.

LostAngeles

7th October 2007, 04:15 PM

Hmmm...you don't know the difference between a racist and a bigot, do you?

How about this: is "prejudice" bad?

Tokie

Racists and bigots are simply subsets of the set of ********.

Prejudice is bad depending on the inputs. If I make a pre-judgement based simply on skin color that isn't say, about tanning ability, that would be wrong. If I made a pre-judgement based on sex about menustration, that would be correct. If I make a pre-judgement based on dress and how a person carries themself as they enter a room to give a lecture, that is correct.

Overall, if a pre-judgement is not open to being revised upon further information, then it is bad.

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 04:17 PM

Apparently, you really were pretty unclear. Glad that's cleared up, though.

History and English may not have a wealth of jobs available once you get the degree, but that does not make those fields useless or undesirable. I would rather not live in a society with no extensive study of history or language.

For instance, an english major might have made your point far more clearly and concisely, and saved you the effort of having to repeat it. ;)

It so happens I hold a degree in English (lit.). It's useless in the American economy, today.

For practical purposes, yes, it proves just that. Your own admission to the virtual non-existence of jobs for those holding such degrees (you really don't kneed a Ph.D. in Philosophy to be waiter you know) means that graduates in those fields of study have and will continue to have for the foreseeable future very dim prospects of their education actually having much to do with their employment outside a few limited circles, primarily education.

Yes, if you want to be a high school history teacher, it's a good idea to get a history degree. If you have more vague goals--as do most graduates with non-technical/sci/engineering or, Liberal Arts, degrees--you will find the work world less...wecoming.

If someone has told you otherwise, you need to examine their reasond for doing so.

It's not a matter of what kind of society you would "rather" live in (and given that you are now attending college in Germany, if I remember, it's my guess $$ is not much of an issue for you, and probably won't be after graduation, and so this is probably like water off a duck's back...but most college grads don't have that apparent luxury) it's a matter of what sort of society you DO live in, and that society puts a premium on very specialized educations and those are, today, techincal and scientific, for the most part. Another good one is of course, business.

Glad we could clear that up, though I am beginning to guess that it was not so much a matter of my poor communications skills, but rather a reader who'd rather not read the truth.

Tokie

Lonewulf

7th October 2007, 04:27 PM

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 04:51 PM

Money is plenty a big deal. We just get free trips and housing thanks to my mom's government work.

The rest of your post seems to be railings and rantings. Not sure if I really care one way or another. ;)

Yeah...well, I do go on.

Good for you...I imagine attending university in Germany is free....

Anyway, yes...I know you think it's ranting and railing. That's what I predicted.

You are invested for some reason (likely low skills in other areas...I know the feeling) in believing in the value of a liberal arts DEGREE and so are telling yourself whatever you need to to convince yourself that after you get it, finding a job using it will be a snap.

Hopefully I am wrong and you are right.

Tokie

Lonewulf

7th October 2007, 04:56 PM

Yeah...well, I do go on.

Good for you...I imagine attending university in Germany is free....
The University of Heidelberg is actually cheaper than Texas A&M.

Anyway, yes...I know you think it's ranting and railing. That's what I predicted.

You are invested for some reason (likely low skills in other areas...I know the feeling)
Actually, I've been said to have talent in music, writing, been said to have a decent memory, and even been said to have a scientific mind. Of course, nothing really catches my interest long enough enough for me to really stick to it, though I'm thinking the fields of computer science or astronomy might hold my interest.

in believing in the value of a liberal arts DEGREE
Yes. "Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it".

Though I'm going to be pursuing a degree more into either computer science or astronomy, or a combination of the two.

and so are telling yourself whatever you need to to convince yourself
I don't have to convince myself.

As a professor said before going to a concentration camp in Schindler's List, "Not essential? I teach literature and history. How is that not essential?"

Literature, History, and Humanities tells us much about the human race, our history, and our mix of cultures. This is good information, no matter what people like you say.

that after you get it, finding a job using it will be a snap.
Well, since I
A) Never said that.

And

B) Aren't even pursuing a bachelor's in a "Liberal Arts" degree.

I think that you need to lay off spewing out the ********.

Hopefully I am wrong and you are right.
Considering that you have yet to make a single correct analysis of me or my statements, I don't think it's even possible for you to be right.

Tokenconservative

7th October 2007, 05:06 PM

The University of Heidelberg is actually cheaper than Texas A&M.

Actually, I've been said to have talent in music, writing, been said to have a decent memory, and even been said to have a scientific mind. Of course, nothing really catches my interest long enough enough for me to really stick to it, though I'm thinking the fields of computer science or astronomy might hold my interest.

Yes. "Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it".

Though I'm going to be pursuing a degree more into either computer science or astronomy, or a combination of the two.

I don't have to convince myself.

As a professor said before going to a concentration camp in Schindler's List, "Not essential? I teach literature and history. How is that not essential?"

Literature, History, and Humanities tells us much about the human race, our history, and our mix of cultures. This is good information, no matter what people like you say.

Well, since I
A) Never said that.

And

B) Aren't even pursuing a bachelor's in a "Liberal Arts" degree.

I think that you need to lay off spewing out the *******.

Considering that you have yet to make a single correct analysis of me or my statements, I don't think it's even possible for you to be right.

Cost: Well, that's good. And if you get free room/board because of something to do with the taxes I pay...well, I guess that's okay. This one time.

You will seek your own councel of course. Believe what you will, study what you will. If you don't believe me, however you might try this: dummy up a resume showing a degree in one of the humanities and start sending it out to large US employers. Make sure they know in your cover letter or some other intent statement that you don't believe specialized knowledge and skillsets are as important as more generalized studies in the humanities so as to avert "repeating the past," etc., etc. I'd like to see how you do. Maybe I'm wrong.

I wouldn't hire you. But who knows, maybe many other employers are out there looking for someone with just this lack of specified skills.

Yes, it's good to have broad-based knowlege. Turning that into a paying job, is a bit tougher. If your parents are already in gov service, like the diplomatic corps, that makes it easier, of course.

It's hard to make a "correct analysis" of you when I'm handed so much inaccuate data.

Again..not sure if that's simply your or my poor communication skills or...something else.

Tokie

Lonewulf

7th October 2007, 05:14 PM

Cost: Well, that's good. And if you get free room/board because of something to do with the taxes I pay...well, I guess that's okay. This one time.
Yeap, taxes pay for our housing, and the housing of many military personnel, those that work for the military as civilians and those that work as soldiers. It's great!

You will seek your own councel of course. Believe what you will, study what you will. If you don't believe me, however you might try this: dummy up a resume showing a degree in one of the humanities and start sending it out to large US employers. Make sure they know in your cover letter or some other intent statement that you don't believe specialized knowledge and skillsets are as important as more generalized studies in the humanities so as to avert "repeating the past," etc., etc. I'd like to see how you do. Maybe I'm wrong.
You see, your assumption here is that I've been saying, "OMG! HUMANITIES WILL GIVE US ALL JOBS RIGHT OUT THE DOOR!"

See, that's because you have very poor reading comprehension, and have yet to be able to show even the most elementary ability to parse or understand my posts.

Yes, it's good to have broad-based knowlege. Turning that into a paying job, is a bit tougher. If your parents are already in gov service, like the diplomatic corps, that makes it easier, of course.
Actually, my mother is in accounting.

It's hard to make a "correct analysis" of you when I'm handed so much inaccuate data.
There is nothing inaccurate about the data, and you are always free to ask questions, which you lack.

Instead, you leap to conclusions. Which seems to be one of your major downfalls in ... well, pretty much everything I've seen of you.

Again..not sure if that's simply your or my poor communication skills or...something else.
Pretty sure it's you.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th October 2007, 06:35 PM

Can you please name me any courses offered by Liberal Arts that are useless?
Any course with the word postmodern in its title.

~~ Paul

bpesta22

7th October 2007, 06:42 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th October 2007, 06:50 PM

Today, in the media, on the univ. campus, and anywhere else where the far-left holds sway, there is no such thing as an "illegal alien."
Is the Village Voice still a liberal paper?

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0513,york,62456,2.html

How about the Providence Journal?

http://www.projo.com/news/content/VELASQUEZ_DECISION_10-01-07_NK7AUGQ.22fe92c.html

I think they still use "illegal alien" in California.

http://www.hometownstation.com/illegal-alien-welfare-2007-09-28-11-41-4.html

On the other hand, there's Florida:

http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1271044.php/Florida_pol_wants_to_ban_illegal_alien_from_lexico n

~~ Paul

Tokenconservative

8th October 2007, 12:33 PM

Yeap, taxes pay for our housing, and the housing of many military personnel, those that work for the military as civilians and those that work as soldiers. It's great!

You see, your assumption here is that I've been saying, "OMG! HUMANITIES WILL GIVE US ALL JOBS RIGHT OUT THE DOOR!"

See, that's because you have very poor reading comprehension, and have yet to be able to show even the most elementary ability to parse or understand my posts.

Actually, my mother is in accounting.

There is nothing inaccurate about the data, and you are always free to ask questions, which you lack.

Instead, you leap to conclusions. Which seems to be one of your major downfalls in ... well, pretty much everything I've seen of you.

Pretty sure it's you.

Love it!

"My parents work 'in government.'" Uh...huh...if they are military...why not put that in terms that most um...normal people would and say: My parents are in the military.

I remember being in a bar once and some guys hitting on some women near me were telling them they "work for the government" (this was some time ago). I listened in for a while, and these guys were trying hard to convince these women they were "secret agents" working for "the gubbmint." Since I am an a-hole, I eventually leaned over and told one of them "they work for the Post Office."

You stated that a "humanities" degree would open doors. I have found, in my experience, that if anything, outside a very limited number of venues, it actually CLOSES doors. As to whether a good, basic education including a number of humanities course is a good idea, of course it is!
But don't expect (as you did before I set you straight) to find many ads reading "humanities majors! Want to make $100, 200, $300k the week after you graduate! Call now!" Some waiters DO make that kind of money, but it takes decades.

It's not a matter of outrigt inaccuracy, but like so many liberals, you've already gained a very strong ability to skew the data you do supply in order to not-quite say what it is you are saying, forcing less...skillful communicators to pry it out of you as a dentist might a decayed tooth.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

8th October 2007, 12:35 PM

I think TC is right just looking at return on investment / from a financial POV only.

There are other good reasons to get edumacated, but just considering how much your earnings will increase by getting the degree, a liberal arts degree is not worth it (can even be negative, in that you lose 4 years in a company somewhere getting pay raises and moving up the ranks while you are studying post modern lesbian jewish literature in braile!).

.

LOL!

So true. The good thing with a humanities edjamacashun is when you are having a smoke on your breaks out in back of the Applebee's, you can discuss post-modern lesbian Jewish literature, even in braille with all the other humanities majors working there.

Tokie

Lonewulf

8th October 2007, 12:39 PM

Love it!

"My parents work 'in government.'" Uh...huh...if they are military...why not put that in terms that most um...normal people would and say: My parents are in the military.
I'm not normal. ;)

My mom (my dad quit his job and divorced my mother) works as an accountant for the U.S. Army. It's a civilian position for the Armed Forces, making her a GS 12. She's also held the position of Auditor in Corpus Christi, Texas, but that job didn't pan out.

Right now, she's an accountant for the military base here in Germany.

When I talk about my mom, I usually say, "My mother works for the military as a civilian". But I in no way have a "canned" way of speaking about things.

I remember being in a bar once and some guys hitting on some women near me were telling them they "work for the government" (this was some time ago). I listened in for a while, and these guys were trying hard to convince these women they were "secret agents" working for "the gubbmint." Since I am an a-hole, I eventually leaned over and told one of them "they work for the Post Office."
Funny.

You stated that a "humanities" degree would open doors.
Quote me where I said that, please.

I have found, in my experience, that if anything, outside a very limited number of venues, it actually CLOSES doors. As to whether a good, basic education including a number of humanities course is a good idea, of course it is!
But don't expect (as you did before I set you straight) to find many ads reading "humanities majors! Want to make $100, 200, $300k the week after you graduate! Call now!" Some waiters DO make that kind of money, but it takes decades.

Quote me where I said that humanities gives you "high paying jobs", please.

It's not a matter of outrigt inaccuracy, but like so many liberals, you've already gained a very strong ability to skew the data you do supply in order to not-quite say what it is you are saying, forcing less...skillful communicators to pry it out of you as a dentist might a decayed tooth.
"Skew the data"? So you are now saying that I am being obtuse, and purposefully so?

Also, how do you know I am a "liberal"? For all you know I could be conservative. Do you assume that anyone that disagrees with you is a liberal? Are there any other choices besides "liberal" and "conservative"?

Earthborn

9th October 2007, 01:30 PM

Ok, but first tell me who I can't cite because all here will discredit them w/o looking at what they read since everyone knows they are racist?I'm more interested in where you get your ideas from, so if it is up to me, you can quote anyone you like. Including racists.

Secular declines in cognitive test scores: A reversal of the Flynn Effect(snip)I fail to see how this proves that "the Flynn effect is in crisis". I don't think anyone has ever suggested that IQ must necessarily increase forever.

Dozens of twin, adoption, and family studies have confirmed the high heri-
tability of intellectual and behavioral traits, and even reaction time tasks, within
a race (snip)Correlation does not equal causation, so a correlation of .25 (or whatever) does not mean 25% of IQ is caused by the environment, as you claimed.

Tokenconservative

9th October 2007, 03:43 PM

I'm not normal. ;)

My mom (my dad quit his job and divorced my mother) works as an accountant for the U.S. Army. It's a civilian position for the Armed Forces, making her a GS 12. She's also held the position of Auditor in Corpus Christi, Texas, but that job didn't pan out.

Right now, she's an accountant for the military base here in Germany.

When I talk about my mom, I usually say, "My mother works for the military as a civilian". But I in no way have a "canned" way of speaking about things.

Funny.

Quote me where I said that, please.

Quote me where I said that humanities gives you "high paying jobs", please.

"Skew the data"? So you are now saying that I am being obtuse, and purposefully so?

Also, how do you know I am a "liberal"? For all you know I could be conservative. Do you assume that anyone that disagrees with you is a liberal? Are there any other choices besides "liberal" and "conservative"?

LOL.

Love it. You have to work in "my dad's a jerk!!!!" If that does not make you a liberal, nothing does.

I calls 'em like I sees, dear. And when someone comes to me spouting as much liberal cant as do you, I calls 'em a lib. Just because you do not say "I'm a big whiny lib!" it does not mean you are not, nor does it mean I am either too stupid to figure it out, nor that I have to hold off identifying you as such until you do.

Can you name ONE liberal who calls him or herself that?

Anyway, here is how you do it: "My mom works for the US gov't." If she is not military, it simply does not matter who she does accounting for--while "military" is part of the gummint, it's an egregious misrepresentation to say that you are "in" the military when in fact, you are not. I occasionally do what I do FOR military personell...does that mean I work for the military? How about if I deliver food to military bases? This is exactly the same thing as those postal employees trying to pick up girls in a bar by leaving them with the impression that they were CIA or some such.

Just let me know when you need help with other things like this.

Tokie

Lonewulf

9th October 2007, 03:48 PM

LOL.

Love it. You have to work in "my dad's a jerk!!!!" If that does not make you a liberal, nothing does.

So being open to my personal viewpoints as to my father demonstrates my political views? :boggled:

Can you please explain that one?

I calls 'em like I sees, dear. And when someone comes to me spouting as much liberal cant as do you, I calls 'em a lib. Just because you do not say "I'm a big whiny lib!" it does not mean you are not, nor does it mean I am either too stupid to figure it out, nor that I have to hold off identifying you as such until you do.
But you haven't even heard my political views.

Can you name ONE liberal who calls him or herself that?
I wasn't aware that "liberal" was an insulting derogatory term. And yes, I know plenty.

I just asked one of my friends. He said: "Social liberal, economically conservative."

Anyway, here is how you do it: "My mom works for the US gov't." If she is not military, it simply does not matter who she does accounting for--while "military" is part of the gummint, it's an egregious misrepresentation to say that you are "in" the military when in fact, you are not.
Except that she works under military commanders. Her work specifically goes towards army goals. Her accounting directly deals with Army accounts.

She once got an award directly from a U.S. Army general (non-civilian).

I'm not sure why she should meet your criteria to be able to say she works for the Army.

I occasionally do what I do FOR military personell...does that mean I work for the military?
Do you have a GS rank?

How about if I deliver food to military bases?
Do you have a GS rank?

This is exactly the same thing as those postal employees trying to pick up girls in a bar by leaving them with the impression that they were CIA or some such.
No, it's being honest. You seem to dislike that for some reason. :boggled:

Just let me know when you need help with other things like this.

Thanks, but somehow I doubt yelling at people and insulting them because I disagree with them on a messageboard will help me pick up chicks.

Tokenconservative

10th October 2007, 06:04 AM

So being open to my personal viewpoints as to my father demonstrates my political views? :boggled:

Can you please explain that one?

But you haven't even heard my political views.

I wasn't aware that "liberal" was an insulting derogatory term. And yes, I know plenty.

I just asked one of my friends. He said: "Social liberal, economically conservative."

Except that she works under military commanders. Her work specifically goes towards army goals. Her accounting directly deals with Army accounts.

She once got an award directly from a U.S. Army general (non-civilian).

I'm not sure why she should meet your criteria to be able to say she works for the Army.

Do you have a GS rank?

Do you have a GS rank?

No, it's being honest. You seem to dislike that for some reason. :boggled:

Thanks, but somehow I doubt yelling at people and insulting them because I disagree with them on a messageboard will help me pick up chicks.

1. Yes, I can help you understand this: conservatives (generalising) keep their personal lives um...personal. It's liberals, dining on a rich diet of Oprah and having this reinforced by liberal teachers and profs and in some cases parents who believe that they should be "open and frank" and should "share" such things at every opportunity.

2. Again: I don't need you to jump up and down and shriek "I'm a PROGRESSSSIIIIVVVVEEEEE!!! See my Birkinstocks!! I drive a Prius! I drink venti soy lattes with extra no-fat soy foam and cinamon sprinkles!!" I am able to take the words (or deeds, if I am made aware of them) of people and understand from those their ideological leanings. Call it a function of age, if you will. If I meet a guy in the local pub and he says "Man, I had a helluva time pulling the heads off'n that '67 Camaro, today, then I hadda fix four flats on a dually and on this RV...whew! Glad to be off work, lemmee tell ya!" I can ASSUME he is a mechanic, professionally, and not a medical doctor. Now, I COULD be wrong...maybe he fixes flats on RVs as a hobby, and IF I misread these cues, mea culpa. But GENERALLY speaking, one can assume that a fellow sitting beside you at the end of the work day complaining like this is MOST LIKELY an auto mechanic.

3. Well, now you are aware that most liberals will, when identified as such, CLAIM that you are "calling names!" when you identify them for what they are. "Social lib/eco con" is a middle-of-the-road conservative. There is, by the way, no such thing as a middle-of-the-road liberal today. In for a penny, in for a pound on that side of the aisle. You are either a MoveOn.org far, far left socialist, or you are not welcome.

4. So what is her rank? And her MOS? Where is she stationed?

5. Yes, you can say "she works for the Army." You did not say that. You said--or implied, just lime my Postal workers--she is "in the military."

6. No I don't.

7. No I don't.

8. Do I need one? Will it get me a better table in nice restaraunts?

9. Yes, I do dislike that. It's what libs do, being "open and frank" and "just telling the truth..." I don't need to know that you had a bloody stool this morning, either. And entering a conversation by shrieking "My dad left me and my poor mom...the BASTARD!!!" when it is not in any concievable way germain to the conversation is, first and foremost, what liberals do, and secondly none of my business and therefore not something you should be interjecting in THIS conversation.

Tokie

Lonewulf

10th October 2007, 06:23 AM

1. Yes, I can help you understand this: conservatives (generalising) keep their personal lives um...personal.
Ah, so conservatives are all mental clones?

It's liberals, dining on a rich diet of Oprah
Actually, I hate Oprah, and I hate "Dr. Phil". I haven't seen that show in years, and when I did, I turned it off 5 minutes in.

and having this reinforced by liberal teachers and profs and in some cases parents who believe that they should be "open and frank" and should "share" such things at every opportunity.
Why not?

2. Again: I don't need you to jump up and down and shriek "I'm a PROGRESSSSIIIIVVVVEEEEE!!! See my Birkinstocks!! I drive a Prius! I drink venti soy lattes with extra no-fat soy foam and cinamon sprinkles!!" I am able to take the words (or deeds, if I am made aware of them) of people and understand from those their ideological leanings. Call it a function of age, if you will. If I meet a guy in the local pub and he says "Man, I had a helluva time pulling the heads off'n that '67 Camaro, today, then I hadda fix four flats on a dually and on this RV...whew! Glad to be off work, lemmee tell ya!" I can ASSUME he is a mechanic, professionally, and not a medical doctor. Now, I COULD be wrong...maybe he fixes flats on RVs as a hobby, and IF I misread these cues, mea culpa. But GENERALLY speaking, one can assume that a fellow sitting beside you at the end of the work day complaining like this is MOST LIKELY an auto mechanic.

And a person that talks about his parents is most likely to be liberal in politics? :boggled:

Ooookay. I'll just take your word for it.

3. Well, now you are aware that most liberals will, when identified as such, CLAIM that you are "calling names!" when you identify them for what they are.
It's funny, because I have yet to actually see that.

Really, I just find it funny how quick you are to judge a person's entire ideology and viewpoint when given only a few data points.

"Social lib/eco con" is a middle-of-the-road conservative.
Ah, so he's not a True Scotsman... I mean, Liberal.

There is, by the way, no such thing as a middle-of-the-road liberal today.
"Social liberal/economic conservative" is a middle-road liberal just as much as it is a "middle road conservative".

In for a penny, in for a pound on that side of the aisle. You are either a MoveOn.org far, far left socialist, or you are not welcome.
Huh, interesting. Guess I'm educated, then. I never knew that.

And I'm sure that the conservatives aren't like that at all. I mean, if you disagree with the conservative mindset at all, you're still welcome with open arms, right? Like when you disagree with the main viewpoints involving stem cells, abortion, gay marriage, etc.?

4. So what is her rank? And her MOS? Where is she stationed?
GS 12 is a rank. I just said that. Please keep up.

She's stationed in a local army base. I forget the name, I'll ask her later.

5. Yes, you can say "she works for the Army." You did not say that. You said--or implied, just lime my Postal workers--she is "in the military."

Quote me. Back that claim up.

6. No I don't.

7. No I don't.
Then you don't work for the Army. Thank you, good night.

8. Do I need one? Will it get me a better table in nice restaraunts?
No, it would mean you work for the Armed Forces.

9. Yes, I do dislike that. It's what libs do, being "open and frank" and "just telling the truth..." I don't need to know that you had a bloody stool this morning, either.
When I tell you that I had a "bloody stool", then this complaint will make sense.

And entering a conversation by shrieking "My dad left me and my poor mom...the BASTARD!!!"when it is not in any concievable way germain to the conversation is, first and foremost, what liberals do, and secondly none of my business and therefore not something you should be interjecting in THIS conversation.

I apologize, then, for offending your conservative sensibilities. I'm sorry that you cannot handle that information. I'll be sure to make sure that everything I say is equivalent to what you would see on Leave it to Beaver.

Also, can you please quote where I "shrieked", or said what you said above? You seem to be misattributing what I say with the voices in your head.

Tokenconservative

10th October 2007, 07:11 AM

Ah, so conservatives are all mental clones?

Actually, I hate Oprah, and I hate "Dr. Phil". I haven't seen that show in years, and when I did, I turned it off 5 minutes in.

Why not?

And a person that talks about his parents is most likely to be liberal in politics? :boggled:

Ooookay. I'll just take your word for it.

It's funny, because I have yet to actually see that.

Really, I just find it funny how quick you are to judge a person's entire ideology and viewpoint when given only a few data points.

Ah, so he's not a True Scotsman... I mean, Liberal.

"Social liberal/economic conservative" is a middle-road liberal just as much as it is a "middle road conservative".

Huh, interesting. Guess I'm educated, then. I never knew that.

And I'm sure that the conservatives aren't like that at all. I mean, if you disagree with the conservative mindset at all, you're still welcome with open arms, right? Like when you disagree with the main viewpoints involving stem cells, abortion, gay marriage, etc.?

GS 12 is a rank. I just said that. Please keep up.

She's stationed in a local army base. I forget the name, I'll ask her later.

Quote me. Back that claim up.

Then you don't work for the Army. Thank you, good night.

No, it would mean you work for the Armed Forces.

When I tell you that I had a "bloody stool", then this complaint will make sense.

I apologize, then, for offending your conservative sensibilities. I'm sorry that you cannot handle that information. I'll be sure to make sure that everything I say is equivalent to what you would see on Leave it to Beaver.

Also, can you please quote where I "shrieked", or said what you said above? You seem to be misattributing what I say with the voices in your head.

1. You are engaging in what is typical liberal behavior, though: first, I am not to label you, second is the "not meeeee!" defense which goes: "well, yeah...all them other libs ______ but....not meeeeee!" It doesn't matter whether you watch Oprah. You have bought into the Oprah culture, as demonstrated by your lack of social comportment with, first, your sharing of personal information and verified by your asking "why not!?" Go back and read the last sentence I just wrote. See that word that starts with "p"? Go look it up. Look up the big one that starts with "c", too.

2. Wonderful Playbook equivocation. No, of course not. Clarence Thomas talks about his "parent" extensively in his new book. One who interjects "I HATE my DAD!" into a conversation that has nothing to do with that person's dad--hated or loved--is a liberal.

3. You may find it "funny," but you are young. As you grow into adulthood and get older, you'll find that you'll leave behind (or should...many libs of course do not) some of this childish thinking, to wit: I will wait until a person TELLS me what they are politically before I just assume someone who travels thousands of miles to protest the G-8 in their Che tee is a liberal!!!" You'll be waiting a long time. Libs NEVER admit that's what they are (see: um...well...you!).

4. LOL. GS stands for Government Service, I believe. The number is a type of ranKING. It's not rank, as the term is used in the military. I asked for your mother's RANK in the Army. Is she a major? captain? colonel, what?

5. No. I don't work for the army. I've done work for people IN the military, but I, unlike you, have a very clear understanding of the difference between things like doing work for people in the military, being a civilian contractor hired by the military and being IN the military.

6. No, it would not. It MIGHT mean you contract to one or other of the services. When you work FOR the military, you are IN the military.

7. You have to work a LOT harder thanyou have been to offend me. I am simply pointing up the FACTS: you are a liberal as is borne out by your words. Now, if you also wear Che tees and protest the G8, that would simply be verification.

Tokie

Lonewulf

10th October 2007, 07:23 AM

1. You are engaging in what is typical liberal behavior, though: first, I am not to label you, second is the "not meeeee!" defense which goes: "well, yeah...all them other libs ______ but....not meeeeee!" It doesn't matter whether you watch Oprah. You have bought into the Oprah culture, as demonstrated by your lack of social comportment with, first, your sharing of personal information and verified by your asking "why not!?" Go back and read the last sentence I just wrote. See that word that starts with "p"? Go look it up. Look up the big one that starts with "c", too.

Uh huh.

2. Wonderful Playbook equivocation. No, of course not. Clarence Thomas talks about his "parent" extensively in his new book. One who interjects "I HATE my DAD!" into a conversation that has nothing to do with that person's dad--hated or loved--is a liberal.
Okay. Though I never said anything about the dad being a liberal, so I don't quite see what you're saying.

3. You may find it "funny," but you are young. As you grow into adulthood and get older, you'll find that you'll leave behind (or should...many libs of course do not) some of this childish thinking, to wit: I will wait until a person TELLS me what they are politically before I just assume someone who travels thousands of miles to protest the G-8 in their Che tee is a liberal!!!" You'll be waiting a long time. Libs NEVER admit that's what they are (see: um...well...you!).
I never had reason to admit what I am and what I am not. Personally, I'm usually undecided when it comes to matters of government. I lean towards libertarianism in ideals, but at the same time, Germany is just fine with a strong government.

On the other hand, I'm all for personal liberties. I think that some personal liberties should be guarded, and if we don't use the Government to do it, then there has to be another source to do so.

4. LOL. GS stands for Government Service, I believe. The number is a type of ranKING. It's not rank, as the term is used in the military. I asked for your mother's RANK in the Army. Is she a major? captain? colonel, what?
I forget what the GS 12 rank is equivalent to. I'll have to ask her.

GS rank has equivalency to military rank, but it's limited.

5. No. I don't work for the army. I've done work for people IN the military, but I, unlike you, have a very clear understanding of the difference between things like doing work for people in the military, being a civilian contractor hired by the military and being IN the military.
Actually, you don't seem to know much at all.

If you work for the Army, on an Army base, with Army accounts, you're still working for the Army. QED.

All you're trying to do is to use semantics to try to "score" in an argument to seem superior to me. Sorry, but it isn't working on this end.

6. No, it would not. It MIGHT mean you contract to one or other of the services. When you work FOR the military, you are IN the military.
And working directly under military commanders just means you're doing it for funsies? I really don't get your point here.

You know what, though? I'll drop it. Okay, I'm an evil liberal fascist that apparently was entirely wrong in saying that my mother worked for the Army, even though she does.

Now, do you have anything meaningful to talk about?

7. You have to work a LOT harder thanyou have been to offend me. I am simply pointing up the FACTS: you are a liberal as is borne out by your words.
If you say so.

Now, if you also wear Che tees and protest the G8, that would simply be verification.
So you can't have an opinion on a subject without arbitrarily falling in an "Either/Or" group? Is your entire world black and white, Liberal or Conservative?

I feel sad for you.

As for the G8, I don't particularly see a reason to be against it, but I'm not well-studied on the subject. I also don't wear "Che tees".

NobbyNobbs

10th October 2007, 07:53 AM

As for head count: this is why the public schools where I live (I doubt Ohio has this problem the way we do) are out in front in the battle to allow the children of illegals to attend our "free" schools and to throw open the borders to even more of them. The more noses they count in a school, the more money the school gets, whether that nose has a right to be there or not.

I just got here, and so I don't know if this has been mentioned, refuted, discussed, or debunked, but there's one little, tiny point you're overlooking.

Children of illegal immigrants, if they are born in the USA, are full and legal citizens, deserving of all the privileges that go with citizenship.

To punish these children for the faults of their parents is like advocating original sin (something else I've never understood).

These kids have as much a right to be in school as yours. They have as much a right to healthcare as yours. They have a right to be protected by our laws, just like yours. These are children of illegal immigrants, they are not in themselves illegal immigrants.

They are U.S. citizens.

LostAngeles

10th October 2007, 09:04 AM

Token, when you get done, "demonstrating," how liberal Lonewulf is, would you mind clearing up your insinuations of me being a racist, please?

Thanks.

ponderingturtle

10th October 2007, 09:30 AM

Token, when you get done, "demonstrating," how liberal Lonewulf is, would you mind clearing up your insinuations of me being a racist, please?

Thanks.

You are clearly heavily baised against the Yukagir, a native people of siberia.

{I just kept flashing on the kids in the hall sketch about finding who this guy was biased against and it was the Sami of Lapland}

Lonewulf

10th October 2007, 11:58 AM

Update: My mom is equivalent in civilian rank as a Major has in military rank. At the least, that's what GS 12 means. She works in "Hammond's Barracks", near Mannheim, Germany.

Fun stuff.

fishbob

10th October 2007, 02:03 PM

To Tokie:

Do you assume that anyone that disagrees with you is a liberal? Are there any other choices besides "liberal" and "conservative"?

Yes he does.
Paranoia is not pretty.
Neither is deja vu.

ImaginalDisc

10th October 2007, 02:15 PM

Paranoia is not pretty.
Neither is deja vu.

Neither is paranoia.

ponderingturtle

10th October 2007, 02:29 PM

Neither is paranoia.

Nonsense Friend Citizen, please report the the termination booths for Treason. Have a Nice Day.

Remember Happiness is Mandatory.

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 05:28 AM

Uh huh.

Okay. Though I never said anything about the dad being a liberal, so I don't quite see what you're saying.

I never had reason to admit what I am and what I am not. Personally, I'm usually undecided when it comes to matters of government. I lean towards libertarianism in ideals, but at the same time, Germany is just fine with a strong government.

On the other hand, I'm all for personal liberties. I think that some personal liberties should be guarded, and if we don't use the Government to do it, then there has to be another source to do so.

I forget what the GS 12 rank is equivalent to. I'll have to ask her.

GS rank has equivalency to military rank, but it's limited.

Actually, you don't seem to know much at all.

If you work for the Army, on an Army base, with Army accounts, you're still working for the Army. QED.

All you're trying to do is to use semantics to try to "score" in an argument to seem superior to me. Sorry, but it isn't working on this end.

And working directly under military commanders just means you're doing it for funsies? I really don't get your point here.

You know what, though? I'll drop it. Okay, I'm an evil liberal fascist that apparently was entirely wrong in saying that my mother worked for the Army, even though she does.

Now, do you have anything meaningful to talk about?

If you say so.

So you can't have an opinion on a subject without arbitrarily falling in an "Either/Or" group? Is your entire world black and white, Liberal or Conservative?

I feel sad for you.

As for the G8, I don't particularly see a reason to be against it, but I'm not well-studied on the subject. I also don't wear "Che tees".

It's fun arguing with you LW, but you are young and it's now becoming circular. Let's recap:

1. Certain things you say/the way you present them signify to me a more left-leaning than centrist, conservative nor certainly "libertarian" (my guess: you are confusing that with "liberal" because of the root) view.

2. Your mother's boss cannot order her to pick up her weapon, put on her BDUs and report to Ramstein for the next C-41 to Iraq. If he does, she can tell him to shove it, and quit. While in SOME cases, a soldier can do that too, they are diminishingly rare, whereas a GS12 can do it all day long and not end up in Leavenworth...that's the difference. She works for the US government, assigned to the Army.

3. I would be the last person in the world to argue that I know much. One thing you find out as you get older, is how truly ignorant you are, given that when you were younger you knew everything.

4. It's not a matter of semantics. It's a matter of clarity. Here, there's a big dustup over something Rush Limbaugh said when he referenced "phony soldiers" (he was talking about a guy who washed out of basic, then went on to claim he'd been in Iraq, was wounded there and was not a "soldier" standing up against the war). The left has been shrieking for weeks about this, claiming that Limbaugh is "dissing" US service people. It sounded to me like you were trying to gain some street cred by association with your mother who you implied was a military professional. Which WOULD by-the-by, buy you some cred vis a vis military matters then. Your mom is an accountant employed by the US fed. gov't assigned to the Army in Germany. She does not put BDUs on every morning and does not know how to field-strip and M-16. She prolly kills a 10-column tho!

5. No, you are not an evil liberal fascist. I've met evil liberal fascists. You are young, and tend to spout off without thinking (myself: I don't have the "young" excuse any longer). Which is fine. But when you do that in a forum like this, you should expect some old fart, or even some young mouthy type, to call you on it.

6. It's not necessary to agree. But clarity is nice. As for your political proclivities: you seem to be parroting a lot of what you were taught in your left-liberal upbringing...public schools or East/West coast private schooling?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 05:29 AM

Token, when you get done, "demonstrating," how liberal Lonewulf is, would you mind clearing up your insinuations of me being a racist, please?

Thanks.

Sure....soon's you show how I am.

Tokie

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 05:38 AM

It's fun arguing with you LW, but you are young and it's now becoming circular.
Funny how that works.

1. Certain things you say/the way you present them signify to me a more left-leaning than centrist, conservative nor certainly "libertarian" (my guess: you are confusing that with "liberal" because of the root) view.
No, I'm not confusing anything. I know perfectly well the difference between libertarian and liberal.

I have seriously considered the libertarian ideal, and I'm perfectly behind this idea:

"That all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty."

Which means, yes, legalization of drugs, prostitution, and similar deals. I'm fine with that. I'm also for the legalization of personal extreme body modification.

I also have thought, for a long time, that the less government there is, the better our country would be. I'm beginning to rethink the latter, but not the former.

2. Your mother's boss cannot order her to pick up her weapon, put on her BDUs and report to Ramstein for the next C-41 to Iraq. If he does, she can tell him to shove it, and quit. While in SOME cases, a soldier can do that too, they are diminishingly rare, whereas a GS12 can do it all day long and not end up in Leavenworth...that's the difference. She works for the US government, assigned to the Army.
They can order her to wear full MOPP gear, as she did when stationed in Korea.

Either way, your "difference" is uninspiring and, honestly, is just made to "score points".

OMG, my mom's not an actual soldier, so she's somehow lesser!

3. I would be the last person in the world to argue that I know much. One thing you find out as you get older, is how truly ignorant you are, given that when you were younger you knew everything.
And yet, you gain impressive mind-reading powers, given the ability to know a person's entire personal ideology with a few posts on an internet forum? WOW! I hope I can learn to be psychic too!

4. It's not a matter of semantics. It's a matter of clarity. Here, there's a big dustup over something Rush Limbaugh said when he referenced "phony soldiers" (he was talking about a guy who washed out of basic, then went on to claim he'd been in Iraq, was wounded there and was not a "soldier" standing up against the war). The left has been shrieking for weeks about this, claiming that Limbaugh is "dissing" US service people. It sounded to me like you were trying to gain some street cred by association with your mother who you implied was a military professional. Which WOULD by-the-by, buy you some cred vis a vis military matters then. Your mom is an accountant employed by the US fed. gov't assigned to the Army in Germany. She does not put BDUs on every morning and does not know how to field-strip and M-16. She prolly kills a 10-column tho!
It's honestly fascinating how obsessed you are over this point. :)

5. No, you are not an evil liberal fascist. I've met evil liberal fascists. You are young, and tend to spout off without thinking (myself: I don't have the "young" excuse any longer). Which is fine. But when you do that in a forum like this, you should expect some old fart, or even some young mouthy type, to call you on it.
I hope they all do it with the efficiency and intelligence of people like you!

Oh, wait, sorry, wrong person.

6. It's not necessary to agree. But clarity is nice. As for your political proclivities: you seem to be parroting a lot of what you were taught in your left-liberal upbringing...public schools or East/West coast private schooling?
Both. DODD schools in Korea, Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas for my college education, and right now the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

I don't "parrot" anything. I say what is, in my opinion, the point that has the most valid evidence and logic behind it. If you disagree, you can point out the illogic or evidence to the contrary. However, claiming that someone "parrots" something because it happens to agree with someone else you disagree with, does not get us anywhere.

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 05:43 AM

I just got here, and so I don't know if this has been mentioned, refuted, discussed, or debunked, but there's one little, tiny point you're overlooking.

Children of illegal immigrants, if they are born in the USA, are full and legal citizens, deserving of all the privileges that go with citizenship.

To punish these children for the faults of their parents is like advocating original sin (something else I've never understood).

These kids have as much a right to be in school as yours. They have as much a right to healthcare as yours. They have a right to be protected by our laws, just like yours. These are children of illegal immigrants, they are not in themselves illegal immigrants.

They are U.S. citizens.

LOL. What country do you think this is?

My kids have a right to school. So do the kids of illegals who were BORN here. The kids of illegals who were not born here should not be in our schools. Neither should the other kind, but right now our Constitution says they should be.

As for healthcare: um....no...my kids (whose great grandparents were born here) don't have a "right" to healthcare. I pay for that. Now, the kids of illegals DO have this right. That's because most states have laws that say that emergency rooms must treat anyone who shows up. These people, of course, don't pay for this--I do, when I take MY kids there (and so do you, but in your liberal pique, you don't "get" that--and as teacher have such an embarassingly attractive healthcare plan, you really don't care). If I take my kids to the emergecny room...I have to pay for it. Along with the healthcare of all those illegals, kids and otherwise, lined up in the ER with us!

See the difference?

Tokie

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 05:46 AM

As for healthcare: um....no...my kids (whose great grandparents were born here) don't have a "right" to healthcare. I pay for that. Now, the kids of illegals DO have this right. That's because most states have laws that say that emergency rooms must treat anyone who shows up. These people, of course, don't pay for this--I do, when I take MY kids there (and so do you, but in your liberal pique, you don't "get" that--and as teacher have such an embarassingly attractive healthcare plan, you really don't care). If I take my kids to the emergecny room...I have to pay for it. Along with the healthcare of all those illegals, kids and otherwise, lined up in the ER with us!

So you want the children of illegals to be tossed to the curb and left to die while suffering from appendicitis?

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 05:48 AM

Funny how that works.

No, I'm not confusing anything. I know perfectly well the difference between libertarian and liberal.

I have seriously considered the libertarian ideal, and I'm perfectly behind this idea:

"That all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty."

Which means, yes, legalization of drugs, prostitution, and similar deals. I'm fine with that. I'm also for the legalization of personal extreme body modification.

I also have thought, for a long time, that the less government there is, the better our country would be. I'm beginning to rethink the latter, but not the former.

They can order her to wear full MOPP gear, as she did when stationed in Korea.

Either way, your "difference" is uninspiring and, honestly, is just made to "score points".

OMG, my mom's not an actual soldier, so she's somehow lesser!

And yet, you gain impressive mind-reading powers, given the ability to know a person's entire personal ideology with a few posts on an internet forum? WOW! I hope I can learn to be psychic too!

It's honestly fascinating how obsessed you are over this point. :)

I hope they all do it with the efficiency and intelligence of people like you!

Oh, wait, sorry, wrong person.

Both. DODD schools in Korea, Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas for my college education, and right now the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

I don't "parrot" anything. I say what is, in my opinion, the point that has the most valid evidence and logic behind it. If you disagree, you can point out the illogic or evidence to the contrary. However, claiming that someone "parrots" something because it happens to agree with someone else you disagree with, does not get us anywhere.

Ah...now I see. You are confusing the ideals of libertarianism with "anarchy."

Gotcha.

No...they can't "order" your mom to do anything outside the scope of her employment. If she agreed in her contract that the CO in Korea could order her to wear a uniform, so be it. But she could also have told him "no thanks," quit, got on the next flight home. As a GS12, she probably wouldn't even have been fired from the fed payroll, but would likely not be working for the Army again.

It's not psychic or psychotic. It's experience. I've had virtually this same argument with dozens of young people like you...which is how I know (from that comment on piercing) that you are using the term "libertarianism" inaccurately.

It may not "prove" anything, but it is what it is. I don't imagine you picked up your ideals about sticking pieces of metal all over yourself from the Army, by the way.

Tokie

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 05:52 AM

Ah...now I see. You are confusing the ideals of libertarianism with "anarchy."

Gotcha.
Wrong.

It's not psychic or psychotic. It's experience. I've had virtually this same argument with dozens of young people like you...which is how I know (from that comment on piercing) that you are using the term "libertarianism" inaccurately.
Uh huh, 'kay.

It may not "prove" anything, but it is what it is. I don't imagine you picked up your ideals about sticking pieces of metal all over yourself from the Army, by the way.
'kay.

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 05:57 AM

So you want the children of illegals to be tossed to the curb and left to die while suffering from appendicitis?

Yes, that is the cunundrum, isn't it?

No, I don't want that, but since you asked, here IS what I would like to see:
I want one--just one--CEO and his/her HR director of a fortune 100 company to be arrested for the crime of knowingly employing illegal aliens, charged, prosecuted, sentenced to the fullest extent of the law and perp walked to a federal maximum security pen.

That will solve the problem. How, you ask?
Simple: if just one CEO is actually punished for employing illegals, ALL CEOs (from Wal-Mart down to Joe's Landscaping) will suddenly find Americans to do the "jobs Americans won't do!!!" and all their illegals will be out of work. They'll hang around for a month, maybe as long as six, but by the end of a year, millions of illegals will have self-deported (very few of them want to be Americans...if you've taught in schools populated by 80%+ children of illegals, you know that few of their children do, either). They can get all the free healthcare they want in Mehico, as far as I am concerned.

Now, that's about as likely to happen as I am likely to sprout wings and fly to Mars. Especially with the traitor we now have in the Oval Office. And the one coming up, she don't look none too good for allowing that, niether.

Meanwhile, there kids should NOT be educated in our schools. It is an ENORMOUS drain on our resources, and these children, coming from homes where education is openly denigrated for the most part, are some of the most disruptive in the schools, besides.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 06:00 AM

Wrong.

Uh huh, 'kay.

'kay.

Hmmmm....brilliant riposte. I shore dun been put in MY place!

Outside the part about sticking pieces of metal in your body (by the way: as far as I know, there are no laws in the US preventing you from doing that all you want, so long as it is YOUR body, and you are of majority age), which indicates you are an "anarchist," the other things you mentioned are the same things other anarchists latch onto to avoid self-identifying as "anarchists."

As I said: been there, dun that a dozen times before.

Tokie

Zep

11th October 2007, 06:01 AM

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c130/hdspray/redneck/redneck-0148.jpg

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 06:15 AM

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c130/hdspray/redneck/redneck-0148.jpg

Especially when I call a public school or other government office.

Tokie

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 06:15 AM

Yes, that is the cunundrum, isn't it?

No, I don't want that, but since you asked, here IS what I would like to see:
I want one--just one--CEO and his/her HR director of a fortune 100 company to be arrested for the crime of knowingly employing illegal aliens, charged, prosecuted, sentenced to the fullest extent of the law and perp walked to a federal maximum security pen.
Not sure about the maximum security pen, but I agree with you in principle, yeah. If you punish the people exploiting illegals, you'll have no reason to fear the illegals "stealing your jobs".

Hmmmm....brilliant riposte. I shore dun been put in MY place!
Indeed.

Outside the part about sticking pieces of metal in your body (by the way: as far as I know, there are no laws in the US preventing you from doing that all you want, so long as it is YOUR body, and you are of majority age)
Sure, yeah. And tattooing was made legal, although once it wasn't.

Can't wait until we get computer implants and cybernetic attachments, though. ;)

which indicates you are an "anarchist," the other things you mentioned are the same things other anarchists latch onto to avoid self-identifying as "anarchists."
How the hell am I an anarchist? No, explain this one to me. I actually like government arresting people that would murder, kill, rape, or harm others.

Explain to me (in small words, I'm just a dumb kid while you're the genius), how I'm an anarchist.

As I said: been there, dun that a dozen times before.
That's a shame. You'd think that if someone has been at something for a while, they'd actually be good at recognizing it...

Zep

11th October 2007, 06:25 AM

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...dneck-0148.jpgEspecially when I call a public school or other government office.

Tokie

If you don't laugh at the joke, you're probably the punchline - Lonewulf

LostAngeles

11th October 2007, 09:07 AM

Sure....soon's you show how I am.

Tokie

I never called you a racist. I said that your phrasing, which apparently equated all Hispanics with illegal immigrants, was racist. When I asked, you turned it around and made it seem that I said that.

So, you want to straighten that out yet?

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 11:42 AM

I never called you a racist. I said that your phrasing, which apparently equated all Hispanics with illegal immigrants, was racist. When I asked, you turned it around and made it seem that I said that.

So, you want to straighten that out yet?

I love this kind of PC parsing of language and semantic circle-jerking.

"I din't say YOU were a racist!! I said you say racist things!!!"

LOL!

Tell me, LA...when did Spanish become a race?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 11:51 AM

Not sure about the maximum security pen, but I agree with you in principle, yeah. If you punish the people exploiting illegals, you'll have no reason to fear the illegals "stealing your jobs".

Indeed.

Sure, yeah. And tattooing was made legal, although once it wasn't.

Can't wait until we get computer implants and cybernetic attachments, though. ;)

How the hell am I an anarchist? No, explain this one to me. I actually like government arresting people that would murder, kill, rape, or harm others.

Explain to me (in small words, I'm just a dumb kid while you're the genius), how I'm an anarchist.

That's a shame. You'd think that if someone has been at something for a while, they'd actually be good at recognizing it...

Now, I'm not supposed to identify you for what you are, a liberal (American version, not Euro), but virtually everytime you put finger to key, you parrot some leftist cant? Please explain how people coming to the US and being employed at greater wages than would be American workers are being "exploited"? Oh, that's right...they were forced to come here? Or if they went home, it would be to a bucolic life of pastoral beauty...rather than living in a clean, tidy American suburb.

"Yeah, sure"? Once, it was illegal not to go to church on Sunday. So what? There's almost no place left in America where you can't get a tatoo, and far's I know there've never been any laws against you poking your flesh will all manner of horrifically ugly hardware. So please tell me where in the US it's illegal? We have people here who've had horns surgically attached to the bone of their skulls. If getting a little diamond in your nose is illegal, why wouldn't that be?

Stop being a typical kid. Nobody (outside your mother) cares that you are "showing" your MIA dad by trashing your own body. Especially now that you are, apparently, an adult (over 18 in the US).

You tell me how you are an anarchist. It's pretty clear you are not, as you claim, a libertarian or you wouldn't say things like "Big Corporations exploit the poor peasants from Mexico and Latin America!!"

Tokie

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 12:42 PM

Now, I'm not supposed to identify you for what you are, a liberal (American version, not Euro), but virtually everytime you put finger to key, you parrot some leftist cant?
Please quote all my "leftist cants". Show your work.

Please explain how people coming to the US and being employed at greater wages than would be American workers are being "exploited"?

Wait, "greater wages"?

Evidence?

Last I checked, illegal immigrants were, on average, paid less wages. Who the hell would hire someone if they had to pay them greater wages?

Oh, that's right...they were forced to come here?
No.

Or if they went home, it would be to a bucolic life of pastoral beauty...rather than living in a clean, tidy American suburb.
No. Not sure your point here.

I never said that they were "forced" here. I do contend that I don't think that they should be hired for below minimum wage. If businesses were forced to pay illegal immigrants the same as they do the average American worker (assuming that said immigrant doesn't get deported, of course), then there would be little incentive to hire them over the average American.

"Yeah, sure"? Once, it was illegal not to go to church on Sunday.
Really? Didn't know that. Huh.

So what? There's almost no place left in America where you can't get a tatoo, and far's I know there've never been any laws against you poking your flesh will all manner of horrifically ugly hardware.
Sure, tattoos are legal, now. Check this out:

So please tell me where in the US it's illegal?
Oklahoma, for tattoos. Tattoos were finally made legal in November 1, 2006. It's now legal to have tattoos in every State in the U.S. Nifty, huh?

For cosmetic surgery that makes you look "inhuman", I think that's outlawed to be a procedure allowed by licensed doctors, hence you cannot get things like anesthesia during the procedure. Feel free to demonstrate that I'm wrong. Of course, I'd love to have an actual cite. ;)

We have people here who've had horns surgically attached to the bone of their skulls. If getting a little diamond in your nose is illegal, why wouldn't that be?
No idea.

Stop being a typical kid.
Okay. ;)

Nobody (outside your mother) cares that you are "showing" your MIA dad by trashing your own body.
I'm not trashing my own body. I don't have a single tattoo or piercing. I also haven't done any drugs, but I'm still for drug legalization.

It's possible to support freedom to do something without actively participating in it.

Also, I find it interesting that you latched onto this. I said that I think that everyone should be able to do to themselves whatever they wish, and you were the one that leapt upon cosmetics, acting as if I was suggesting that it was illegal or repressed in the U.S. I mentioned other things, such as making recreational drugs legal.

It's an interesting way to try to distort what I say.

Especially now that you are, apparently, an adult (over 18 in the US).
Indeed.

You tell me how you are an anarchist. It's pretty clear you are not, as you claim, a libertarian or you wouldn't say things like "Big Corporations exploit the poor peasants from Mexico and Latin America!!"
I'm not a libertarian. I said that the libertarian ideals caught my fancy once. I'm undecided now. I don't assign a label to myself because I actually have my own opinions.

Oh, and yeah, Big Corporations do exploit them. That's why places like Walmart will hire illegal immigrants for below the minimum wage. So that they can make money, which is, after all, what a corporation sets out to do.

If you have evidence that said accusations are false, then I will respectfully retract my position. However, until then, I contend that illegal immigrants aren't "taking" jobs, corporations are "giving" it to them.

I find it interesting that you yourself were the one that suggested we target CEOs.

I want one--just one--CEO and his/her HR director of a fortune 100 company to be arrested for the crime of knowingly employing illegal aliens, charged, prosecuted, sentenced to the fullest extent of the law and perp walked to a federal maximum security pen.

Of course, I'm sure CEOs are forced at gunpoint by the evil illegal immigrants to give them jobs for higher wages. ;)

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 02:02 PM

Please quote all my "leftist cants". Show your work.

Wait, "greater wages"?

Evidence?

Last I checked, illegal immigrants were, on average, paid less wages. Who the hell would hire someone if they had to pay them greater wages?

No.

No. Not sure your point here.

I never said that they were "forced" here. I do contend that I don't think that they should be hired for below minimum wage. If businesses were forced to pay illegal immigrants the same as they do the average American worker (assuming that said immigrant doesn't get deported, of course), then there would be little incentive to hire them over the average American.

Really? Didn't know that. Huh.

Sure, tattoos are legal, now. Check this out:

Oklahoma, for tattoos. Tattoos were finally made legal in November 1, 2006. It's now legal to have tattoos in every State in the U.S. Nifty, huh?

For cosmetic surgery that makes you look "inhuman", I think that's outlawed to be a procedure allowed by licensed doctors, hence you cannot get things like anesthesia during the procedure. Feel free to demonstrate that I'm wrong. Of course, I'd love to have an actual cite. ;)

No idea.

Okay. ;)

I'm not trashing my own body. I don't have a single tattoo or piercing. I also haven't done any drugs, but I'm still for drug legalization.

It's possible to support freedom to do something without actively participating in it.

Also, I find it interesting that you latched onto this. I said that I think that everyone should be able to do to themselves whatever they wish, and you were the one that leapt upon cosmetics, acting as if I was suggesting that it was illegal or repressed in the U.S. I mentioned other things, such as making recreational drugs legal.

It's an interesting way to try to distort what I say.

Indeed.

I'm not a libertarian. I said that the libertarian ideals caught my fancy once. I'm undecided now. I don't assign a label to myself because I actually have my own opinions.

Oh, and yeah, Big Corporations do exploit them. That's why places like Walmart will hire illegal immigrants for below the minimum wage. So that they can make money, which is, after all, what a corporation sets out to do.

If you have evidence that said accusations are false, then I will respectfully retract my position. However, until then, I contend that illegal immigrants aren't "taking" jobs, corporations are "giving" it to them.

I find it interesting that you yourself were the one that suggested we target CEOs.

Of course, I'm sure CEOs are forced at gunpoint by the evil illegal immigrants to give them jobs for higher wages. ;)

You did say that evil corporations were "exploiting" the poor, innocent, peasants...did you not? Was that some other "libertarian"?

Yes, illegals make more than Americans doing the same job.

Links?! LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSS!!!!

You don't know anything about employing or being employed in America, so I doubt this will make much sense to you but here goes: any legal resident/citizen who works for someone else, is forced to pay various taxes and fees for that privelege. If you are an illegal, you don't pay those, and that money just goes right into your pocket. The leftist lie (that you believe) that illegals work for pennies on the dollar is just that, a lie.

So...you make the positive assertion that "last time you checked" illegals are paid less...evidence?

Do you have evidence that illegals are coming here and working for "below minimum wage"? I want something a bit more...believable than a NYTimes or LATimes puff piece on this. Show me some hard data, please.

It was also illegal to have gay sex in many states until quite recently...um, did anyone actually follow those laws? And since I've seen people with those sorts of attachments to their bodies both in person and on TV (Americans)...where they get it done? Mexico? Canada? And I "jumped" on this because you said something about it (can't recall the term, I'd call it piercing, but I'm sure there's a much more en vogue term, like the one you used).

And I'm all for drug decriminalization, too. And prostitution. So I understand that you don't have to practice something to believe it shouldn't be criminal, etc. Once again, you present information in a way that is (pretty cleverly, I have to admit) designed to lead your audience to certain inferences. Then when the audience arrives where you want, you shriek "that's not ME!!!!" If this is not a liberal, by the way...I dunno what is. My youngest is interested in lobbying. I may show her some of your posts. You are pretty good at saying something that any normal person will take to mean "A" but allowing enough wiggle room to later claim (if necessary) that no, what you actually said was "3."

I know you are not a libertarian. You are one of those that likes to play semantic games, but believes in "anarchy." Tell me, do you anarchist hold meetings?

And it's gratifying to hear that I'm not wasting all this time with someone who'd turn themself into a human pincushion.

Do you have any evidence that Wal-Mart is hiring "them" (those people?) at "far under minimum wage? I believe one Wal-Mart got spanked for treating some illegal employees poorly...locking a cleaning crew in at night or some such (their shrink musta been astronomical!)...they were not spanked for either employing illegals OR for underpaying them, though.

LOL. First of all, I never said illegals are "taking" jobs. We are at near full-employment here in America (compare that to Germany's what, 12% permanent unemployment, and typical 15-17% or suchlike?). And I've already made the argument that the corps are "giving" as you put it, the jobs. They are doing that because it's far cheaper for them to employ illegals (not in wages, those are essentially the same in most fields).

What do you find "interesting" about my approach to the cure?

Tokie

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 02:19 PM

You did say that evil corporations were "exploiting" the poor, innocent, peasants...did you not? Was that some other "libertarian"?
I said that certain corporations were exploiting certain people, yes. I made no mention of "poor", "innocent", "evil", nor have I ever referred to myself as a "libertarian". But other than that, yeah.

Yes, illegals make more than Americans doing the same job.

Links?! LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSS!!!!
If you don't have any evidence of this claim, why should I take it seriously?

If you're going to ask me to buy whatever you say without asking for evidence, will you then do me the same honors and buy whatever I say without questioning?*

You don't know anything about employing or being employed in America, so I doubt this will make much sense to you but here goes: any legal resident/citizen who works for someone else, is forced to pay various taxes and fees for that privelege. If you are an illegal, you don't pay those, and that money just goes right into your pocket. The leftist lie (that you believe) that illegals work for pennies on the dollar is just that, a lie.
It makes bad economic sense to pay any illegal workers higher than average wages. I don't quite see the point in hiring someone illegally just so you can pay them higher than normal wage. "Hey, Bob! We can get in trouble for hiring you, and to make it up to you, we'll pay you an extra $5 an hour! Welcome aboard!" Yeeeeeeeeeeeah... I'll buy that claim without reservation. :boggled:

And yeah, sure, they don't pay taxes... and they don't get many benefits at all.

So...you make the positive assertion that "last time you checked" illegals are paid less...evidence?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-10-23-walmart-arrests_x.htm
The cleaning crews did not receive health insurance and were paid below the minimum wage, sometimes as little as $2 a day, a federal official said.

There, I have now have an external source stating that illegals are paid below minimum wage.

Now, you made the claim that illegals are paid MORE wages. Either put up or shut up.

Do you have evidence that illegals are coming here and working for "below minimum wage"? I want something a bit more...believable than a NYTimes or LATimes puff piece on this. Show me some hard data, please.
I find it intriguing that you want me to dig up evidence when you first made the claim that illegals were paid more than average wage. Since that flies in the face of common, business, and economic sense, I would appreciate it if you actually worked to back up your claim.

Otherwise, I'm afraid I have the advantage here.

It was also illegal to have gay sex in many states until quite recently...um, did anyone actually follow those laws?
Yes.

And since I've seen people with those sorts of attachments to their bodies both in person and on TV (Americans)...where they get it done? Mexico? Canada?
America, for many. Some might have got them in other countries, I'm not sure.

And I "jumped" on this because you said something about it (can't recall the term, I'd call it piercing, but I'm sure there's a much more en vogue term, like the one you used).
Body Modification. I don't call it piercing or tattoos or whatever because it's a much broader sense than your narrow vision would allow you to see. Don't worry, I understand. I once thought that the only forms of body modification were piercings, too. Then I turned 8.

And I'm all for drug decriminalization, too. And prostitution.
Kewl.

So I understand that you don't have to practice something to believe it shouldn't be criminal, etc.
Yeap.

Once again, you present information in a way that is (pretty cleverly, I have to admit) designed to lead your audience to certain inferences.
Actually, no. You have demonstrated again and again that you jump to conclusions on people that you have too limited data on. If you failed to do that, you would fail to appear foolish as you try to guess who I am, what I think, and what I look like.

Then when the audience arrives where you want, you shriek "that's not ME!!!!"
No I don't, and no I wouldn't. Unless you can quote where I actually "shriek"?

See, that's another thing about you; you mischaracterize other people to the point where it becomes libel.

If this is not a liberal, by the way...I dunno what is.
I have a theory. It's a crazy one, I know... but hear me out.

Someone's political beliefs cannot be inferred from their personality or how they portray themselves or their thoughts. Instead, it can only be demonstrated by what those thoughts or ideals actually are.

Crazy idea, innit? I know, it probably made your brain explode trying to parse it.

My youngest is interested in lobbying. I may show her some of your posts. You are pretty good at saying something that any normal person will take to mean "A" but allowing enough wiggle room to later claim (if necessary) that no, what you actually said was "3."
Well, the thing is, you mistake my ideals for practices. As you do, you will always appear foolish.

I know you are not a libertarian. You are one of those that likes to play semantic games, but believes in "anarchy."
No, I don't.

Tell me, do you anarchist hold meetings?
I wouldn't know.

By the way, I'm either a "liberal", or I'm an "anarchist". I'm pretty sure that the two ideologies are incompatible at the core level.

And it's gratifying to hear that I'm not wasting all this time with someone who'd turn themself into a human pincushion.
Glad to hear that you'd judge someone based on that data point.

Do you have any evidence that Wal-Mart is hiring "them" (those people?) at "far under minimum wage?
The cleaning crews did not receive health insurance and were paid below the minimum wage, sometimes as little as $2 a day, a federal official said.
That's "any evidence". It's certainly valid evidence, unless you find a way to disprove that particular story. But I'm sure you'll just hand-wave it off because it doesn't fit in with your world view. ;)

LOL. First of all, I never said illegals are "taking" jobs.
Yes, I'm just going by the usual claim. I did not mean to imply that you actually said that. I apologize for the mischaracterization.

We are at near full-employment here in America (compare that to Germany's what, 12% permanent unemployment, and typical 15-17% or suchlike?).
Given that Germany accepted East Germany, that accounts for a big drain on unemployment rates. Those damn commies really screwed that up.

News flash: East Germany is not recovering very well. It hasn't had a whole lot of time to recover very well.

And I've already made the argument that the corps are "giving" as you put it, the jobs. They are doing that because it's far cheaper for them to employ illegals (not in wages, those are essentially the same in most fields).

What do you find "interesting" about my approach to the cure?
I find it interesting that you agree with me that we should punish the corporations responsible for hiring illegal immigrants, but you take the time to make it sound like I'm the "evil liberal", while you're the heroic Stephen Colbertish conservative.

The only difference is, Stephen Colbert is an intentional parody. ;)

drkitten

11th October 2007, 02:21 PM

Yes, illegals make more than Americans doing the same job.

No, they don't.

Links?! LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSS!!!!

Hypocracy much?

Anyway, there the link from the Center for Immigrant Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/wages.html), a non-partisan think tank.

The median weekly wage for native-born high school dropouts who work full time is $350, while the median weekly wage for full-time Mexican immigrants is $326.

Note the way the statistics are taken here. Although the two groups are employed in similar circumstances, this statistic includes all Mexican immigrants, including both legal and illegals, and immigrants at all educational levels -- so the occaisonal Mexican doctor, lawyer, or engineer will also be included in this study. Despite the existence of positive outliers in the Mexican group that would be excluded from the native-born group, the median wage for Mexican immgrants is still less. Restricting our attention to only Mexican immigrants with less than high school education would almost certainly reduce the average Mexican wage even further.

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 03:43 PM

I said that certain corporations were exploiting certain people, yes. I made no mention of "poor", "innocent", "evil", nor have I ever referred to myself as a "libertarian". But other than that, yeah.

If you don't have any evidence of this claim, why should I take it seriously?

If you're going to ask me to buy whatever you say without asking for evidence, will you then do me the same honors and buy whatever I say without questioning?*

It makes bad economic sense to pay any illegal workers higher than average wages. I don't quite see the point in hiring someone illegally just so you can pay them higher than normal wage. "Hey, Bob! We can get in trouble for hiring you, and to make it up to you, we'll pay you an extra $5 an hour! Welcome aboard!" Yeeeeeeeeeeeah... I'll buy that claim without reservation. :boggled:

And yeah, sure, they don't pay taxes... and they don't get many benefits at all.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-10-23-walmart-arrests_x.htm

There, I have now have an external source stating that illegals are paid below minimum wage.

Now, you made the claim that illegals are paid MORE wages. Either put up or shut up.

I find it intriguing that you want me to dig up evidence when you first made the claim that illegals were paid more than average wage. Since that flies in the face of common, business, and economic sense, I would appreciate it if you actually worked to back up your claim.

Otherwise, I'm afraid I have the advantage here.

Yes.

America, for many. Some might have got them in other countries, I'm not sure.

Body Modification. I don't call it piercing or tattoos or whatever because it's a much broader sense than your narrow vision would allow you to see. Don't worry, I understand. I once thought that the only forms of body modification were piercings, too. Then I turned 8.

Kewl.

Yeap.

Actually, no. You have demonstrated again and again that you jump to conclusions on people that you have too limited data on. If you failed to do that, you would fail to appear foolish as you try to guess who I am, what I think, and what I look like.

No I don't, and no I wouldn't. Unless you can quote where I actually "shriek"?

See, that's another thing about you; you mischaracterize other people to the point where it becomes libel.

I have a theory. It's a crazy one, I know... but hear me out.

Someone's political beliefs cannot be inferred from their personality or how they portray themselves or their thoughts. Instead, it can only be demonstrated by what those thoughts or ideals actually are.

Crazy idea, innit? I know, it probably made your brain explode trying to parse it.

Well, the thing is, you mistake my ideals for practices. As you do, you will always appear foolish.

No, I don't.

I wouldn't know.

By the way, I'm either a "liberal", or I'm an "anarchist". I'm pretty sure that the two ideologies are incompatible at the core level.

Glad to hear that you'd judge someone based on that data point.

That's "any evidence". It's certainly valid evidence, unless you find a way to disprove that particular story. But I'm sure you'll just hand-wave it off because it doesn't fit in with your world view. ;)

Yes, I'm just going by the usual claim. I did not mean to imply that you actually said that. I apologize for the mischaracterization.

Given that Germany accepted East Germany, that accounts for a big drain on unemployment rates. Those damn commies really screwed that up.

News flash: East Germany is not recovering very well. It hasn't had a whole lot of time to recover very well.

I find it interesting that you agree with me that we should punish the corporations responsible for hiring illegal immigrants, but you take the time to make it sound like I'm the "evil liberal", while you're the heroic Stephen Colbertish conservative.

The only difference is, Stephen Colbert is an intentional parody. ;)

So you admit you are an anarchist?

LOL...it's pretty clear you (and I doubt you are alone in here) have any idea how "paying wages" works in America. And again, you are exercising that quite remarkable (kudos!) skill you have for twisting what I say...or misunderstanding it. I hope it's the former.

LOL! It's estimated that every illegal who puts $10,000 into the system, takes $30,000 out in benefits such as "free" schooling, healthcare, actual welfare, etc.

Yeah...you know, you just don't find too many in the leftist media running out to document the fact that illegals don't pay FICA, don't pay income taxes and that those who employ them don't have to pay all the "in-kinds" required by cities, counties, states and the feds. No idea why that would be, but there it is.

It's not a matter of "evidence." It's a matter of common sense to anyone who has ever had to make a payroll (see the above).

Libel? Hmmm...you may have something there. I know that calling me a lib is fightin' woids....

Wait, I have to pick up some brain pieces from the floor...okay, got that whole Jackie Kennedy thing out of the way, now I can address your nonsense: um...no. I don't know if you know this or not, but we are half a planet apart. I cannot "see" you, even though I am sure you believe Bill Gates or Dick Cheney is watching you through your computer. I don't know what you "do"; I can only go by your words here, and so far, you are very much painting yourself into the "anarchist" (LOL!) corner.

Um...do you know how long ago it's been since the Wall came down and Germany became one again? Just a guess? And W. Germany had high unemployment, before Ronald Wilson Reagan caused the Wall to come down, anyway. Maybe worse than today, given that their government was even more socialist then. Besides, that's just an excuse...what's France's excuse for their 20% (oh...wait, that's right...they lie about all the second-class citizens there...they don't count) unemployment rate there?

I have no doubts that I will always appear foolish, but you seem like a smart young lady. You should re-read what you said (aside from the me being foolish part) and see if you can figure anything out about that that doesn't quite track.

Who is Stephen Colbert?

By the way, what I've done (as I find it necessary to do with young folks like you...and sometimes not so young) is to draw you out, make you say a bunch of stuff so I can figure out your political and social ideology. I know what you are now. It's dumber than being a liberal, but not nearly as dangerous.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 03:46 PM

No, they don't.

Hypocracy much?

Anyway, there the link from the Center for Immigrant Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/wages.html), a non-partisan think tank.

Note the way the statistics are taken here. Although the two groups are employed in similar circumstances, this statistic includes all Mexican immigrants, including both legal and illegals, and immigrants at all educational levels -- so the occaisonal Mexican doctor, lawyer, or engineer will also be included in this study. Despite the existence of positive outliers in the Mexican group that would be excluded from the native-born group, the median wage for Mexican immgrants is still less. Restricting our attention to only Mexican immigrants with less than high school education would almost certainly reduce the average Mexican wage even further.

You don't understand much about how wages are paid in America, do ya, "Dr."?

This is a useless statistic. It's too broad. As you yourself note, it includes legal immigrants and probably US citizens who are from Mexico (and there are a heckuva lot of them in America). And I was told (by you, maybe) that I am a RAAACCIIISSTTTTTTT!! for assuming that all immigrants, legal and otherwise come from Mexico.

Try again.

Tokie

Zep

11th October 2007, 03:54 PM

Illegal Mexican kitten gets educated the Tokie way.

http://www.heumoore.com/getimage.jpg

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 04:02 PM

Illegal Mexican kitten gets educated the Tokie way.

http://www.heumoore.com/getimage.jpg

LOL.

But not quite. It still seems to have its head on.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

11th October 2007, 04:05 PM

Well, this has been fun, but the experiment is over. And it's been a crushing success.

It took exactly two (2) posts for a liberal to derail this thread.

Hmmm.

Actually, I figured it would take about 4-5, so my own hypothesis was off a bit, but what the hey.

Tokie

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 04:06 PM

So you admit you are an anarchist?
No.

LOL...it's pretty clear you (and I doubt you are alone in here) have any idea how "paying wages" works in America. And again, you are exercising that quite remarkable (kudos!) skill you have for twisting what I say...or misunderstanding it. I hope it's the former.

Really? I doubt it. What you've said has actually been pretty clear.

LOL! It's estimated that every illegal who puts $10,000 into the system, takes $30,000 out in benefits such as "free" schooling, healthcare, actual welfare, etc.
Okay, I'd like to see some evidence of that. ;)

Yeah...you know, you just don't find too many in the leftist media running out to document the fact that illegals don't pay FICA, don't pay income taxes and that those who employ them don't have to pay all the "in-kinds" required by cities, counties, states and the feds. No idea why that would be, but there it is.
Yeah, but see, you didn't say that. You said:

Please explain how people coming to the US and being employed at greater wages than would be American workers are being "exploited"?

Wages is defined, according to my dictionary, as:

1. Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. Compare living wage, minimum wage.

So, see, I think you were being intentionally misleading. Good work. ;)

It's not a matter of "evidence." It's a matter of common sense to anyone who has ever had to make a payroll (see the above).
In other words, you're saying you have no evidence for your claim?

Libel? Hmmm...you may have something there. I know that calling me a lib is fightin' woids....
"libel" is not equivalent to "fighting words". But perhaps I could use a much easier word to understand for you, and one that is probably more appropriate: Lying.

Wait, I have to pick up some brain pieces from the floor...okay, got that whole Jackie Kennedy thing out of the way, now I can address your nonsense: um...no. I don't know if you know this or not, but we are half a planet apart.
We are. We weren't a few months ago, when I was living in Corpus Christi, Texas.

I cannot "see" you, even though I am sure you believe Bill Gates or Dick Cheney is watching you through your computer.
No, I don't. I rather doubt I'm interesting enough to gain their interest, anyways. Plus, I look like hell in the morning without my caffeine.

I don't know what you "do"; I can only go by your words here, and so far, you are very much painting yourself into the "anarchist" (LOL!) corner.
You have yet to demonstrate how, or what "anarchist" ideals I supposedly have.

Do you often accuse people of being things that they aren't? This is either lying or looking very foolish.

Please, educate me as to how I'm an anarchist.

Um...do you know how long ago it's been since the Wall came down and Germany became one again? Just a guess?
The wall came down in 1989. That was only 18 years ago. Are you saying that economies become erected overnight?

The fact is, in East Germany, jobs are hard to come by. At least, that's the perception of people that actually live here.

And W. Germany had high unemployment, before Ronald Wilson Reagan caused the Wall to come down, anyway. Maybe worse than today, given that their government was even more socialist then. Besides, that's just an excuse...what's France's excuse for their 20% (oh...wait, that's right...they lie about all the second-class citizens there...they don't count) unemployment rate there?
Not sure about France.

I have no doubts that I will always appear foolish, but you seem like a smart young lady.
I'm a guy. Trust me, I have man-parts. ;)

You should re-read what you said (aside from the me being foolish part) and see if you can figure anything out about that that doesn't quite track.
Like what?

Who is Stephen Colbert?
www.wikipedia.org <--- look it up yourself. ;)

By the way, what I've done (as I find it necessary to do with young folks like you...and sometimes not so young) is to draw you out, make you say a bunch of stuff so I can figure out your political and social ideology.
Which you've shown yourself to be a master of, considering you actually claim I'm "anarchist".

I know what you are now.
No offense, but I really don't think you know at all.

It's dumber than being a liberal, but not nearly as dangerous.
Uh huh.

So can you please define in clear terms what "liberal", "anarchist", and "libertarian" means, for us? Just so we're clear what you're actually saying?

Lonewulf

11th October 2007, 04:07 PM

Well, this has been fun, but the experiment is over. And it's been a crushing success.
Aw, don't run away! It's been fun!

LostAngeles

11th October 2007, 04:28 PM

I love this kind of PC parsing of language and semantic circle-jerking.

"I din't say YOU were a racist!! I said you say racist things!!!"

LOL!

Tell me, LA...when did Spanish become a race?

Tokie

Actually, it's in accordance with the rules. If the moderators hadn't requested we differentiate between being a racist and saying racist things, I'd simply make the jump from your racist comments to you being a racist. Calling someone a racist is pretty much poisoning the well. Letting your words speak for themselves does far more to say how racist you are than I ever could.

Spanish is a language not a race. Hispanic refers to an ethnic background.

So... we should call you an ethno-cist? Semantic quibbling?

Still waiting for you to show that it was I and not you who equated Hispanic with illegal immigrant.

ImaginalDisc

11th October 2007, 05:01 PM

LOL.

But not quite. It still seems to have its head on.

Tokie

You either meant to imply that you want illegal Mexicans decapitated, or you're too illiterate to write what you did mean.

In neither case does it appear you're qualified to pass judgment on the education other people should receive.

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 05:23 AM

No.

Really? I doubt it. What you've said has actually been pretty clear.

Okay, I'd like to see some evidence of that. ;)

Yeah, but see, you didn't say that. You said:

Wages is defined, according to my dictionary, as:

1. Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. Compare living wage, minimum wage.

So, see, I think you were being intentionally misleading. Good work. ;)

In other words, you're saying you have no evidence for your claim?

"libel" is not equivalent to "fighting words". But perhaps I could use a much easier word to understand for you, and one that is probably more appropriate: Lying.

We are. We weren't a few months ago, when I was living in Corpus Christi, Texas.

No, I don't. I rather doubt I'm interesting enough to gain their interest, anyways. Plus, I look like hell in the morning without my caffeine.

You have yet to demonstrate how, or what "anarchist" ideals I supposedly have.

Do you often accuse people of being things that they aren't? This is either lying or looking very foolish.

Please, educate me as to how I'm an anarchist.

The wall came down in 1989. That was only 18 years ago. Are you saying that economies become erected overnight?

The fact is, in East Germany, jobs are hard to come by. At least, that's the perception of people that actually live here.

Not sure about France.

I'm a guy. Trust me, I have man-parts. ;)

Like what?

www.wikipedia.org <--- look it up yourself. ;)

Which you've shown yourself to be a master of, considering you actually claim I'm "anarchist".

No offense, but I really don't think you know at all.

Uh huh.

So can you please define in clear terms what "liberal", "anarchist", and "libertarian" means, for us? Just so we're clear what you're actually saying?

Yes, I know what I've said has been clear. But that has not stopped you (at least you are fairly entertaining about it, tho!) from twisting my words to your own uses. Again, kudos. You are remarkably good at it, and I DO mean that as a compliment. It's one thing to just shriek that I said something I did not say (like so many in here calling me RAAAAAACCIIIISTTTTT!!! because I think English should be spoken in America...not sure when Spanish became a race; still waiting on the answer to that one from other quarters).

Wages: Whatever. LOL. Look, as I said, you are young, of course you've never met a payroll. No biggie. But in the real world, it's all sorta lumped together. Now, this is an "education" forum, so you get a lot of "teachers" in here who "forget" to add the extraordinary number of days off they get and their bennie and retirement packages to their terribly, horrifically, 3rd-World "low" wages, so, the two in tandem may give you a skewed understanding. From the standpoint of a guy writing the check ever two weeks...all the same thing. Moreover, in economics, it's all lumped together as "wages and other remuneration(s) associated with the costs of labor," etc., etc. I really don't think you are twisting it here (does not demonstrate your usual expertise...you are just ignorant--that does not mean "stupid," by the way).

Hmmm...I am not going to look them up, but I don't think "libel" and "lying" mean the same things...not legally, I am almost certain, and 100% certain that in the common English lexicon they are not conjoined twins of either connotation nor denotation.

I don't need to "demonstrate." As I explained, I will just let you keep talking, bating you, as it were, into revealing more an more. So far, you read as a slightly uncertain, but leaning-that-way anarchist. So...how was the riot at the last G8? Throw any good billiard balls?

1989 and Economics: look at Poland. Look at Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. Look at Hungary. Look at Georgia and to some extent Ukraine--hell, even Russia! 1989 was not "last night," by any measure, and certainly not in terms of modern (put away the Keynes and Malthus!) economic theory. In 1989, the US had an abysmal unemployment rate and we were just coming out of perhaps the longest recession in our history (1872-1992 give or take). Inflation was easing but was still a big problem. Our steel industry was gone, our auto industry just starting to pull itself out of near collapse.

Germany has had the problems it has for a number of reasons, ONE of which is the absorbtion of a 3rd world nation. But it's well past the time when that can possibly continue to be a good excuse for the econ. problems there. Hell, even Somalia, today, has a thriving, if somewhat priatical economy. And Uncle Sugar did not rebuild their entire country for them.

Well, Germany is only Germany. France has the problems it has, also due to a host of demonstrably failed programs and such that they will only NOW, with a conservative (American def.) in charge be pulling themselves out of. You can't long tell the baker how much he is permitted to charge for a loag of bread and expect good things to happen in your economy.

A guy, really? For some reason I thought otherwise. You remind me a lot of a young "I'm not EITHER an anarchist!!" girl I used to engage in JUST this sort of debate with on another forum a year or so ago.

Definitions: nobody can clearly define those things, especially "anarchist" and "liberal." Wiki them. It's like art...I know what it is when I see it, though I may have to look at it a long time and turn my head this way and that before I can figure out whether I like it or not. Same's you...the more you "speak" the clearer understanding I get of your socio-political ideologies...which are decidedly leaning to the "anarchist." Curious: do you anarchists have meetings?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 05:33 AM

Actually, it's in accordance with the rules. If the moderators hadn't requested we differentiate between being a racist and saying racist things, I'd simply make the jump from your racist comments to you being a racist. Calling someone a racist is pretty much poisoning the well. Letting your words speak for themselves does far more to say how racist you are than I ever could.

Spanish is a language not a race. Hispanic refers to an ethnic background.

So... we should call you an ethno-cist? Semantic quibbling?

Still waiting for you to show that it was I and not you who equated Hispanic with illegal immigrant.

Um...no, not so much, actually. It was not I who equated Hispanic, a catchall term that's now been in popular use, from my memory, since maybe the early '90s to describe a large segment of the US population tracing its roots Spain, Latin and S. America, the Carib in some cases and of course Mexico. This was the term largely "agreed" to by an assortment of ethnically Spanish-indio groups and orgs. after decades of fighting over it. In the last decade or so, we saw the resurgence of the silly-assed and awkward "Lation/Latina" but that seems to have been shunted aside along with "Chicano." Now, I am old enough to remember that you could get knifed in certain parts of the town I live in if you called the "wrong" person of Spanish-indio decent a "Chicano," so vitriolic was the debate.

In any case, it was the American MEDIA that made "Spanish" into a race. As a leftist, you either wholeheartedly agree with this, cannot see it and/or refuse to see it. Amounts to the same thing, either way and is much the same as the left-liberal-media telling the lie that one who believes the borders of America should be controlled is ALSO a RAAACCCIIISTTTTTTT!!!!

Your claiming that my word make me a RAACCCIIIISTTTTTT! when all my words amount to is wondering when Spanish (a language and perhaps a national identity--the Nazis, by the by, considered the Spanish Aryan) became a race, and wondering as well whether the Black Shirts, Mexican border guards who patrol Mexico's southern border with standing orders to summarily execute any non-Mexican they find wandering there--man, woman and child--are also RAACCIIISSSTTTTTT!!!

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 05:35 AM

You either meant to imply that you want illegal Mexicans decapitated, or you're too illiterate to write what you did mean.

In neither case does it appear you're qualified to pass judgment on the education other people should receive.

Hmmm...this is like one of those net grammar nannies who screams about your misuse of a semi-colon, while making all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes him/herself in the complaint.

Due to a missing word or three, and some mis-punctuation perhaps, I can't even dicipher what your second shot here means.

As to the other: yeah...I'd like to see 30-40 million heads on sticks.

Sheesh.

Tokie

Lonewulf

12th October 2007, 06:22 AM

Yes, I know what I've said has been clear. But that has not stopped you (at least you are fairly entertaining about it, tho!) from twisting my words to your own uses. Again, kudos.
If you say so. :rolleyes:

You are remarkably good at it, and I DO mean that as a compliment. It's one thing to just shriek that I said something I did not say (like so many in here calling me RAAAAAACCIIIISTTTTT!!! because I think English should be spoken in America...not sure when Spanish became a race; still waiting on the answer to that one from other quarters).
*Shrugs*

Wages: Whatever. LOL. Look, as I said, you are young, of course you've never met a payroll.
Actually, I have. Another conclusion you've jumped to that is, once again, wrong.

No biggie. But in the real world, it's all sorta lumped together.
Which is why you've confused everyone in this thread on the subject, including those that have had jobs (including me)? This is a case of you being either intentionally dishonest, or unintelligently careless.

Now, this is an "education" forum, so you get a lot of "teachers" in here who "forget" to add the extraordinary number of days off they get and their bennie and retirement packages to their terribly, horrifically, 3rd-World "low" wages, so, the two in tandem may give you a skewed understanding.
Yeah, you're right. Illegals don't tend to get retirement, health benefits, or any days off. It's too bad we don't have wonderful jobs like them!

From the standpoint of a guy writing the check ever two weeks...all the same thing. Moreover, in economics, it's all lumped together as "wages and other remuneration(s) associated with the costs of labor," etc., etc. I really don't think you are twisting it here (does not demonstrate your usual expertise...you are just ignorant--that does not mean "stupid," by the way).
Naw, I'm not ignorant, you're just being deliberately misleading.

Hmmm...I am not going to look them up, but I don't think "libel" and "lying" mean the same things...
They're close. Libel is equivalent to slander, being intentionally dishonest to ruin one's name. However, it's only prosecutable if there is evidence of actual harm. In this case, there isn't, which is why I specifically stated that it was more appropriate to call what you do lying, or dishonesty.

Don't worry, you are just ignorant. Not the same as "stupid". ;)

I don't need to "demonstrate."
Then all of your posts are nothing more than hot air, and will always be treated as such.

As I explained, I will just let you keep talking, bating you, as it were, into revealing more an more.
Have fun!

So far, you read as a slightly uncertain, but leaning-that-way anarchist.
Ooooh, interesting. Tell me other interesting details about myself that I've never known!

So...how was the riot at the last G8? Throw any good billiard balls?
No, never been to any riots really.

A guy, really? For some reason I thought otherwise. You remind me a lot of a young "I'm not EITHER an anarchist!!" girl I used to engage in JUST this sort of debate with on another forum a year or so ago.
Good for you.

Definitions: nobody can clearly define those things, especially "anarchist" and "liberal." Wiki them.
I already did.

Anarchism (from Greek αναρχία, "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government[2] and support its elimination,[3][4] often due to a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority.[5] Anarchism is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."[6]
I'm not an anarchist. I see government as necessary. I don't see it as always harmful.

You say "liberal", ignoring that there are multiple definitions of the word. So let me go ahead with "Liberalism".

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Wow. Someone that emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity, open and fair elections, free exchange of ideas! OMG don't call me a Liberal, sir!

Of course, I'm sure you mean the American type of Liberal. So I'll go with Progressivism.

Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

Now, what about "Libertarianism"?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. In continental Europe, and to a lesser extent Ireland and Britain, the older political meaning of libertarianism prevails, as a synonym for anarchism, adapted in late 19th century France as a term that would be more acceptable to the authorities (see libertarian socialism). This article is concerned with libertarianism in its more recent sense.

Now, you said that I'm an anarchist, apparently because I don't believe in big government.

Well

Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: rights theorists and consequentialists.[1] Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property—with force meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone—who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle.

Intriguing!

Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society—even if protecting this liberty involves some initiation of force by government. However, such governmental actions are limited in the free society consequentialists envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.[2]

Hm, perhaps you were thinking of Consequentialist libertarianism. ;)

It's like art...I know what it is when I see it
Leonardo Davinci, you are not.

Considering that most of the conclusions you've jumped to on me, or political ideologies are wrong, I don't really think that you're qualified to make any sorts of judgments whatsoever. ;)

though I may have to look at it a long time and turn my head this way and that before I can figure out whether I like it or not.] Same's you...the more you "speak" the clearer understanding I get of your socio-political ideologies...which are decidedly leaning to the "anarchist." Curious: do you anarchists have meetings?e
Since I'm not an anarchist, I wouldn't know.

Do you meet with Ann Coulter? I'm curious. ;)

Jeff Wagg

12th October 2007, 08:06 AM

I almost got my Associates. I'm not entirely sure you can get a Bachelor's in Liberal Arts, and I really doubt that they have a Master's or Ph.D. :D

I have a BA in Liberal Studies from Georgetown, and they offer a Masters and Ph.D. as well.

ImaginalDisc

12th October 2007, 08:24 AM

Hmmm...this is like one of those net grammar nannies who screams about your misuse of a semi-colon, while making all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes him/herself in the complaint.

Due to a missing word or three, and some mis-punctuation perhaps, I can't even dicipher what your second shot here means.

As to the other: yeah...I'd like to see 30-40 million heads on sticks.

Sheesh.

Tokie

Firstly, if you can't be bothered to use English correctly, you have no right to decry the poor education of others.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with that sentence.

Thirdly, you are a genocidal maniac.

Lonewulf

12th October 2007, 09:05 AM

I have a BA in Liberal Studies from Georgetown, and they offer a Masters and Ph.D. as well.
Isn't that like getting a Ph.D. in "Undecided"? :P

Undecided/Liberal Arts are interchangeable in Del Mar.

LostAngeles

12th October 2007, 09:33 AM

Um...no, not so much, actually. It was not I who equated Hispanic, a catchall term that's now been in popular use, from my memory, since maybe the early '90s to describe a large segment of the US population tracing its roots Spain, Latin and S. America, the Carib in some cases and of course Mexico. This was the term largely "agreed" to by an assortment of ethnically Spanish-indio groups and orgs. after decades of fighting over it. In the last decade or so, we saw the resurgence of the silly-assed and awkward "Lation/Latina" but that seems to have been shunted aside along with "Chicano." Now, I am old enough to remember that you could get knifed in certain parts of the town I live in if you called the "wrong" person of Spanish-indio decent a "Chicano," so vitriolic was the debate.

In any case, it was the American MEDIA that made "Spanish" into a race. As a leftist, you either wholeheartedly agree with this, cannot see it and/or refuse to see it. Amounts to the same thing, either way and is much the same as the left-liberal-media telling the lie that one who believes the borders of America should be controlled is ALSO a RAAACCCIIISTTTTTTT!!!!

Your claiming that my word make me a RAACCCIIIISTTTTTT! when all my words amount to is wondering when Spanish (a language and perhaps a national identity--the Nazis, by the by, considered the Spanish Aryan) became a race, and wondering as well whether the Black Shirts, Mexican border guards who patrol Mexico's southern border with standing orders to summarily execute any non-Mexican they find wandering there--man, woman and child--are also RAACCIIISSSTTTTTT!!!

Tokie

I made no such equivalence either. All I asked was for someone to explain to me how you equating Hispanic with illegal immigrant was not a racist statement.

Also, how do you know I'm a leftist again?

drkitten

12th October 2007, 09:44 AM

Isn't that like getting a Ph.D. in "Undecided"?

Sometimes it's a Ph.D. in "Roll your own." If i want to study the psychological history of theology, do I do that in the history department, the psychology department, or the theology department?

Answer : No, I don't.

Lonewulf

12th October 2007, 09:44 AM

NobbyNobbs

12th October 2007, 10:40 AM

It's fun arguing with you LW, but you are young and it's now becoming circular. Let's recap:

3. I would be the last person in the world to argue that I know much. One thing you find out as you get older, is how truly ignorant you are, given that when you were younger you knew everything.

Stop being a typical kid. Nobody (outside your mother) cares that you are "showing" your MIA dad by trashing your own body. Especially now that you are, apparently, an adult (over 18 in the US).

You don't know anything about employing or being employed in America, so I doubt this will make much sense to you but here goes:

Wages: Whatever. LOL. Look, as I said, you are young, of course you've never met a payroll. No biggie. But in the real world, it's all sorta lumped together. Now, this is an "education" forum, so you get a lot of "teachers" in here who "forget" to add the extraordinary number of days off they get and their bennie and retirement packages to their terribly, horrifically, 3rd-World "low" wages, so, the two in tandem may give you a skewed understanding.

Once again, Token, you make a lot of assumptions about the people you are discoursing with. From the above quotes, it appears to me that you seem to think that your age, as compared to Lonewolf's, gives you some sort of advantage in your argument. Because you are "old" and he is "young", you know things he doesn't, and therefore you are right.

Wrong. First of all, I have seen no indication of either your age nor Lonewolf's, either in posts or in profiles. You have assumed you are older than he. It's quite possible this isn't true. Even if it were, the mere fact of age does not lend automatic credence to your arguments.

The other problem I have with the above posts is more personal. Obviously, (and here, I make a presumption) you are not a teacher, nor do you have any in your family with whom you discuss their work conditions. I feel I can speak on this from experience, having taught for several years. It is rare that I arrive at school after 6:45 am. It is rare that I leave before 5 pm. It is astonishingly rare that I don't have work to do at home after work, or on the weekends. Teacher get done the last week of June, and return the second week of August. I generally spend the last week of July and the first week of August preparing for the school year. It is estimated that an average schoolteacher works more hours in 9 months than a 9-to-5 person works year round. The benefits are hardly fantastic; I had to get state assistance to make sure my kids had medical insurance. And the salaries are hardly exceptional; after 5 years I was barely making 40K gross.

LOL. What country do you think this is?

America. Where we take in your tired, your poor, your huddled masses? Remember all that? People tend to forget that, unless you are pure Navajo, your family is not native either. And before you say "at least my ancestors came here legally", you might want to check what the legal requirements were like then as opposed to now.

My kids have a right to school. So do the kids of illegals who were BORN here. The kids of illegals who were not born here should not be in our schools. Neither should the other kind, but right now our Constitution says they should be.

"Neither should the other kind"?! As you point out, our Constitution says they should, so therefore they should. "Right now"? Are you petitioning your Congressmen for an amendment? If you believe this, then you should be. Good luck with that.

As for healthcare: um....no...my kids (whose great grandparents were born here) don't have a "right" to healthcare. I pay for that. Now, the kids of illegals DO have this right. That's because most states have laws that say that emergency rooms must treat anyone who shows up. These people, of course, don't pay for this--I do, when I take MY kids there (and so do you, but in your liberal pique, you don't "get" that--and as teacher have such an embarassingly attractive healthcare plan, you really don't care). If I take my kids to the emergecny room...I have to pay for it. Along with the healthcare of all those illegals, kids and otherwise, lined up in the ER with us!

See the difference?

Tokie

I said "they have as much of a right to healthcare as do yours". The right to be cared for as American citizens. The right not to be turned away from a hospital.

Did you know that you also pay for those adults who are legal citizens but can't afford healh insurance? They aren't turned away either, you are paying for them...why don't you rant and rally about that, too? Why just immigrants?

And once again, you should really review a teacher's benefits plan before you comment on it.

Yes, illegals make more than Americans doing the same job.

Links?! LIIIIINNNKKKKKSSSSSS!!!!

The leftist lie (that you believe) that illegals work for pennies on the dollar is just that, a lie.

So...you make the positive assertion that "last time you checked" illegals are paid less...evidence?

Do you have evidence that illegals are coming here and working for "below minimum wage"? I want something a bit more...believable than a NYTimes or LATimes puff piece on this. Show me some hard data, please.

And I've already made the argument that the corps are "giving" as you put it, the jobs. They are doing that because it's far cheaper for them to employ illegals (not in wages, those are essentially the same in most fields).

Funny, you demand links and evidence for our position without giving any for your own.

Before teaching, I worked in the food service industry in many capacities for many years. I can unequivocably say, without hesitation, that at about 80% of the places I worked, the illegals were paid less than anyone else would have been for the same job. In most of these jobs, I had access to the records, and in two of those jobs I did the payroll.

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:20 PM

Firstly, if you can't be bothered to use English correctly, you have no right to decry the poor education of others.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with that sentence.

Thirdly, you are a genocidal maniac.

A. You seem confused. I have never called myself anything but a most pedestrian master of the English language.

II. It's "Dr." Kitten who belittles me, due to my lack of education.

4. I am not a maniac.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:23 PM

If you say so. :rolleyes:

*Shrugs*

Actually, I have. Another conclusion you've jumped to that is, once again, wrong.

Which is why you've confused everyone in this thread on the subject, including those that have had jobs (including me)? This is a case of you being either intentionally dishonest, or unintelligently careless.

Yeah, you're right. Illegals don't tend to get retirement, health benefits, or any days off. It's too bad we don't have wonderful jobs like them!

Naw, I'm not ignorant, you're just being deliberately misleading.

They're close. Libel is equivalent to slander, being intentionally dishonest to ruin one's name. However, it's only prosecutable if there is evidence of actual harm. In this case, there isn't, which is why I specifically stated that it was more appropriate to call what you do lying, or dishonesty.

Don't worry, you are just ignorant. Not the same as "stupid". ;)

Then all of your posts are nothing more than hot air, and will always be treated as such.

Have fun!

Ooooh, interesting. Tell me other interesting details about myself that I've never known!

No, never been to any riots really.

Good for you.

I already did.

I'm not an anarchist. I see government as necessary. I don't see it as always harmful.

You say "liberal", ignoring that there are multiple definitions of the word. So let me go ahead with "Liberalism".

Wow. Someone that emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity, open and fair elections, free exchange of ideas! OMG don't call me a Liberal, sir!

Of course, I'm sure you mean the American type of Liberal. So I'll go with Progressivism.

Now, what about "Libertarianism"?

Now, you said that I'm an anarchist, apparently because I don't believe in big government.

Well

Intriguing!

Hm, perhaps you were thinking of Consequentialist libertarianism. ;)

Leonardo Davinci, you are not.

Considering that most of the conclusions you've jumped to on me, or political ideologies are wrong, I don't really think that you're qualified to make any sorts of judgments whatsoever. ;)

Since I'm not an anarchist, I wouldn't know.

Do you meet with Ann Coulter? I'm curious. ;)

Wow. You have a lot of free time for a college student.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:24 PM

Isn't that like getting a Ph.D. in "Undecided"? :P

Undecided/Liberal Arts are interchangeable in Del Mar.

LOL.

Nope...it's like (and in practice, IS) getting a Ph.D in "waitering."

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:27 PM

I made no such equivalence either. All I asked was for someone to explain to me how you equating Hispanic with illegal immigrant was not a racist statement.

Also, how do you know I'm a leftist again?

I did not equate "Hispanic" with illegal alien. The leftist media has. I've explained this 3-4 times now. Either you are (continuing to) engaging in a strawman here, or you are not paying attention.

I know you are a leftist because you scream "RAAAACCIIIISTTTTTTTT!!!!" at anyone who wants to close the borders and get rid of the "Hispanics" (leftist media definition, thereof) in America. Now, if you were a "rightist" you'd be howling "then who'll do the JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DOOOOOOOOO!!!!!?????"

You are not howling, you are shrieking. Ergo, you are a leftist.

Tokie

Lonewulf

12th October 2007, 01:31 PM

Wow. You have a lot of free time for a college student.

Considering that classes don't start until Monday, well, yeah.

I know you are a leftist because you scream "RAAAACCIIIISTTTTTTTT!!!!" at anyone who wants to close the borders and get rid of the "Hispanics" (leftist media definition, thereof) in America. Now, if you were a "rightist" you'd be howling "then who'll do the JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DOOOOOOOOO!!!!!?????"

You are not howling, you are shrieking. Ergo, you are a leftist.
Brilliant deduction, Sherlock!

With your impressive intellectual ability, why don't you quit whatever you're doing and go become a detective? You can be Jack Token, public Dick.

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:43 PM

Once again, Token, you make a lot of assumptions about the people you are discoursing with. From the above quotes, it appears to me that you seem to think that your age, as compared to Lonewolf's, gives you some sort of advantage in your argument. Because you are "old" and he is "young", you know things he doesn't, and therefore you are right.

Wrong. First of all, I have seen no indication of either your age nor Lonewolf's, either in posts or in profiles. You have assumed you are older than he. It's quite possible this isn't true. Even if it were, the mere fact of age does not lend automatic credence to your arguments.

The other problem I have with the above posts is more personal. Obviously, (and here, I make a presumption) you are not a teacher, nor do you have any in your family with whom you discuss their work conditions. I feel I can speak on this from experience, having taught for several years. It is rare that I arrive at school after 6:45 am. It is rare that I leave before 5 pm. It is astonishingly rare that I don't have work to do at home after work, or on the weekends. Teacher get done the last week of June, and return the second week of August. I generally spend the last week of July and the first week of August preparing for the school year. It is estimated that an average schoolteacher works more hours in 9 months than a 9-to-5 person works year round. The benefits are hardly fantastic; I had to get state assistance to make sure my kids had medical insurance. And the salaries are hardly exceptional; after 5 years I was barely making 40K gross.

America. Where we take in your tired, your poor, your huddled masses? Remember all that? People tend to forget that, unless you are pure Navajo, your family is not native either. And before you say "at least my ancestors came here legally", you might want to check what the legal requirements were like then as opposed to now.

"Neither should the other kind"?! As you point out, our Constitution says they should, so therefore they should. "Right now"? Are you petitioning your Congressmen for an amendment? If you believe this, then you should be. Good luck with that.

I said "they have as much of a right to healthcare as do yours". The right to be cared for as American citizens. The right not to be turned away from a hospital.

Did you know that you also pay for those adults who are legal citizens but can't afford healh insurance? They aren't turned away either, you are paying for them...why don't you rant and rally about that, too? Why just immigrants?

And once again, you should really review a teacher's benefits plan before you comment on it.

Funny, you demand links and evidence for our position without giving any for your own.

Before teaching, I worked in the food service industry in many capacities for many years. I can unequivocably say, without hesitation, that at about 80% of the places I worked, the illegals were paid less than anyone else would have been for the same job. In most of these jobs, I had access to the records, and in two of those jobs I did the payroll.

I always find arguments wherein the one making the argument incorporates into his/her own argument the very thing he/she is denigrating me for doing.

Anyway, as I've stated a number of times already in this forum: I have never claimed any wisdom. I'd be happy to tell anyone willing to be bored to tears how my many poor decisions in life demonstrate just the opposite about me. What I have claimed is to be old enough (now) to have EXPERIENCED some things that my mere longer presence on this mortal coil has permitted, whereas some younger person may--probably--has not. For example: our young college boy, Lonewulf CLAIMS to have met a payroll...I doubt that. But whatever.

And by Gaia I hope he's not as old as me and traveling 'round the world with his mom, attending various schools as she goes from job assignment to job assignment. That would not only be pathetic, it would mean I would have to stop talking to him at all as I absolutely detest people like that.

LOL! I work for myself. It's rare that I arrive at work after 4 am. It's rare that I am not working at 7-8 pm. I frequently work Saturdays, often Sundays, most holidays (I refuse to work on Thanksgiving and Christmas because those are drinking holidays) and the last time I had a vacation of more than 2-3 days was in 2002. I don't get a sub to fill in for me when I am sick. I just come to work. I had flu 2 years ago and had to keep a wastebasket next to my desk and take it with me in my car to puke in. I work all summer long. I don't get 3 wks off at Christmas, or a week in the spring.

Yer breakin' my heart, pal...no, really...I'm crying on the inside!

You are right, teacher salaries are not exceptional. Rid yourselves of your union and that can change. Meanwhile, as always, you say nothing about the bennies. You get full health coverage including dental and vision and even mental health, and you pay nothing for it out of your paycheck (the taxpayer picks it up). Moreover, you will retire at 70-90% of the greatest year's pay you recieve during your career. Meaning that even if, you can't make it to the 25 or 30 years, and go part time or some such, when you DO retire, it won't be at the reduced salary, but at your HIGHEST salary.

Again, cry me a river.

On top of all this, the economy does not--ever--impact your salary. It just keeps going up. You cannot be fired for virtually any reason after reaching "tenure" or whatever mealy-mouthed thing it's called today.

Boo...hoo, you poor thing.

And finally, nobody is holding a gun to your head. On the very off chance you are a teacher because you actively decided that's what you wanted to do, and not because at some point in college you said to yourself after seeing another 2.16 GPA for the year, "well, I can always teach, I guess," nobody forced you into it, and nobody is forcing you to stay right now.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:46 PM

Considering that classes don't start until Monday, well, yeah.

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock!

With your impressive intellectual ability, why don't you quit whatever you're doing and go become a detective? You can be Jack Token, public Dick.

Hmm...no classes 'til Monday...shouldn't you be cleaning your bong or something?

Good idea, but I don't think most PIs make as much as I do.

Tokie

Lonewulf

12th October 2007, 01:47 PM

Hmm...no classes 'til Monday...shouldn't you be cleaning your bong or something?

Oooh, classy! A suggestion that I take drugs! :D

So, let's go back to the assumptions about me:

1) I'm an anarchist. Wrong.
2) I put "bits of metal" into my body. Wrong.
3) I've never had a job or a paycheck. Wrong.
4) I abuse drugs. Wrong.

Hmm...

If it's an art form, you're the Microsoft Paint version.

ponderingturtle

12th October 2007, 01:51 PM

Sometimes it's a Ph.D. in "Roll your own." If i want to study the psychological history of theology, do I do that in the history department, the psychology department, or the theology department?

Answer : No, I don't.

So sort of like how Isaac Bonewits got a BA in magic from UC Berkley

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:54 PM

America. Where we take in your tired, your poor, your huddled masses? Remember all that? People tend to forget that, unless you are pure Navajo, your family is not native either. And before you say "at least my ancestors came here legally", you might want to check what the legal requirements were like then as opposed to now.

"Neither should the other kind"?! As you point out, our Constitution says they should, so therefore they should. "Right now"? Are you petitioning your Congressmen for an amendment? If you believe this, then you should be. Good luck with that.

I said "they have as much of a right to healthcare as do yours". The right to be cared for as American citizens. The right not to be turned away from a hospital.

Did you know that you also pay for those adults who are legal citizens but can't afford healh insurance? They aren't turned away either, you are paying for them...why don't you rant and rally about that, too? Why just immigrants?

And once again, you should really review a teacher's benefits plan before you comment on it.

Funny, you demand links and evidence for our position without giving any for your own.

Before teaching, I worked in the food service industry in many capacities for many years. I can unequivocably say, without hesitation, that at about 80% of the places I worked, the illegals were paid less than anyone else would have been for the same job. In most of these jobs, I had access to the records, and in two of those jobs I did the payroll.

Hmmm...so we should just throw open our borders to anyone who can cross them? How many would be enough? 200 million? 500? A billion? As a Good Liberal, do you have any idea what that would do to our environment?

LOL....yep, petitioning my Congressman. Um...why?

Only if they ARE citizens should they have the right to "free" healthcare. And all the hospitals and emegency rooms that've shut down in Texas, AZ, NM, CA, NV, CO etc., have not done so because of winos and old people flooding them. It's because of illegals. And please, don't be such a liberal. Use the correct term: we are not talking about the tired, the poor, etc., nor are we talking about immigrants. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.

I've reviewed the teacher's pay and bennies plan where I live. An auto worker in 1980 would be embarassed by it.

So...you admit that you were a party to an illegal act, the knowning employment of someone not here legally and therefore not legally entitled to hold a job here?

What did you do about that? Did you turn the joint in? Did you fire the illegal? Or just hire more?

And why were you, a good, caring liberal, a party to exploiting these poor "Hispanic immigrants" simply seeking a better life and doing the jobs "Americans won't do!!"?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 01:56 PM

Oooh, classy! A suggestion that I take drugs! :D

So, let's go back to the assumptions about me:

1) I'm an anarchist. Wrong.
2) I put "bits of metal" into my body. Wrong.
3) I've never had a job or a paycheck. Wrong.
4) I abuse drugs. Wrong.

Hmm...

If it's an art form, you're the Microsoft Paint version.

Okay. I'm up for some modification:
1. You TALK like an Anarchist, and believe a lot of the same things they do,
2. You present information in a way that forces others to infer this, that or the other thing so that when they do you can shriek "wrong!",
3. You claimed to have made a payroll, and now you say that that's equivalent to having had a job,
4. You may not abuse drugs, but it's clear you are not unfamiliar with them....

Tokie

Lonewulf

12th October 2007, 02:05 PM

Okay. I'm up for some modification:
1. You TALK like an Anarchist, and believe a lot of the same things they do
1. You have yet to "show your work" and demonstrate, exactly, what I "share".

2. You present information in a way that forces others to infer this, that or the other thing so that when they do you can shriek "wrong!"

2. Ah, yes, the shriek of "You're deliberately fooling meeeeee! It's not that I make snap judgments of people I meet online, it's all your fault! You're fooling MEEEEE!"

You assume that if people support something being made legal, you then assume that they partake of such a thing themselves. You assume that if someone talks about their parents, then they must be "liberal". You assume that if people don't worship businesses and suggest that some may actually be corrupt (GASP!), they must be "liberal" or "anarchist". You make lots of assumptions, it's no wonder people like me are so good at "fooling" you. ;)

3. You claimed to have made a payroll, and now you say that that's equivalent to having had a job
3. I did have a job. I got paid for doing it.

4. You may not abuse drugs, but it's clear you are not unfamiliar with them....
4. It's called wikipedia, or research. Please demonstrate where I show familiarity with drugs, though.

C'mon, if your snap judgments me have any actual rhyme or reason to them, surely it won't be difficult to demonstrate them. Though you've ran away from any challenge to do so. Will you do it again here? ;)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th October 2007, 02:38 PM

You are not howling, you are shrieking. Ergo, you are a leftist.
You really ought to stop taking those armchair psychologist pills. Is there some sort of prize for jumping to conclusions about people?

Hmm...no classes 'til Monday...shouldn't you be cleaning your bong or something?
How many points do you have to accumulate to win that prize?

~~ Paul

Tokenconservative

12th October 2007, 03:24 PM

1. You have yet to "show your work" and demonstrate, exactly, what I "share".

2. Ah, yes, the shriek of "You're deliberately fooling meeeeee! It's not that I make snap judgments of people I meet online, it's all your fault! You're fooling MEEEEE!"

You assume that if people support something being made legal, you then assume that they partake of such a thing themselves. You assume that if someone talks about their parents, then they must be "liberal". You assume that if people don't worship businesses and suggest that some may actually be corrupt (GASP!), they must be "liberal" or "anarchist". You make lots of assumptions, it's no wonder people like me are so good at "fooling" you. ;)

3. I did have a job. I got paid for doing it.

4. It's called wikipedia, or research. Please demonstrate where I show familiarity with drugs, though.

C'mon, if your snap judgments me have any actual rhyme or reason to them, surely it won't be difficult to demonstrate them. Though you've ran away from any challenge to do so. Will you do it again here? ;)

Um...no, actually, I don't. I checked the TOS...nothing in there about that.

Actually, I don't think you are doing it deliberately, but you are a product of your environment. You've been trained to exercise a sort of smarmy dishonesty in things you say, which then allows you to say, that no, in fact, you din't say that. And that's what you do. You'll make a good politician some day.

LOL. Yeah, no wonder. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. You is what you is...you can call yourself a ham sandwhich, but that doesn't mean that's what you are.

Yes, I know you said you had a job. Having a job and getting paid for it is not the same. I guess my terminology has confused you. I mean you were not the guy signing the paychecks; you were BEING paid, not the one PAYING others to do a job.

Yeah..um, not sure whether you've heard, but Wiki is pretty much considered fairly unreliable.

And this last challenge(?) sorta kinda puts paid to the question of whether or not you um...imbibe.

Tokie

Zep

12th October 2007, 03:52 PM

I have never called myself anything but a most pedestrian master of the English language."Master"? "MASTER"??!! :rolleyes:

4. I am not a maniac.

Tokie:dl:

ZirconBlue

12th October 2007, 07:04 PM

Is there some sort of prize for jumping to conclusions about people?

Maybe he has a "Jump to Conclusions" mat (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/quotes).

Gnu Ordure

12th October 2007, 07:16 PM

What I have claimed is to be old enough (now) to have EXPERIENCED some things that my mere longer presence on this mortal coil has permitted, whereas some younger person may--probably--has not.

Experience still has to be learned from, it's not sufficient on its own.

For example, look at Token's usage of 'this mortal coil' in that sentence.

He's using 'coil' in the sense of 'world' or 'Earth', but it doesn't mean that. It means strife and suffering, and is used in the sense of a burden which has to be carried (or put down, eventually).

This a small point of course, but Token says he has a degree in English Literature. Presumably he has encountered 'this mortal coil' in its most famous context, Hamlet's soliloquy. But he still doesn't understand its meaning.

Yet he feels justified in sneering at Lonewulf's 'ignorance', on the basis of his own 'experience'.

I work for myself. It's rare that I arrive at work after 4 am. It's rare that I am not working at 7-8 pm. I frequently work Saturdays, often Sundays, most holidays and the last time I had a vacation of more than 2-3 days was in 2002.

If this is true, Token, may I suggest you seek help ?

This a description of work-addiction. I thought you had young children ? If so, you are neglecting your duties as a father by working 15-16 hours a day, and at week-ends as well.

And you spend enough time here bragging about how much money you earn, so it can't simply be a matter of financial necessity.

Another question arises though. In the last two weeks, you've made over 300 posts here. How can you do that and also work 15-16 hours a day ? Given you've got to fit the rest of your personal life into those 8-9 non-work hours as well ?

Seriously. How do you do it ?

Zep

12th October 2007, 09:15 PM

By little white fibbing...

JoeEllison

12th October 2007, 09:17 PM

This is like tee ball... I want to knock one out of the park, it is just sitting there....

How does he do it?

I can't. I just can't.

LostAngeles

12th October 2007, 09:32 PM

Careful Pest...you and I agree on much.

My own reading of The Bell Curve and ABOUT it suggests that it is villified not because of its science or because it is actually racist, but only because of its substantial and substantiated findings, which tend to ruffle PC feathers.

You are in good company. I've been tagged as a RAAACCCIIISSSTTTTT!!!! as well. Why? Because I favor enforcement of our immigration laws and booting the kids of illegals out of our "free" schools and because I've made the RAAACCCIIISSSTTT observation that schools with 70- 90% "Hispanic" (PC for "Illegal Aliens from Latin countries") populations, tend to (shocker!) do worse on the whole in my satate's standardized testing.

Tokie

Tokie

I did not equate "Hispanic" with illegal alien. The leftist media has. I've explained this 3-4 times now. Either you are (continuing to) engaging in a strawman here, or you are not paying attention.

I know you are a leftist because you scream "RAAAACCIIIISTTTTTTTT!!!!" at anyone who wants to close the borders and get rid of the "Hispanics" (leftist media definition, thereof) in America. Now, if you were a "rightist" you'd be howling "then who'll do the JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DOOOOOOOOO!!!!!?????"

You are not howling, you are shrieking. Ergo, you are a leftist.

Tokie

See the first quoted post above. Looks to me like you sure as hell did. Stop trying to pin this on the OH NOES LIBERAL MEDIA. You've failed to back up that claim. I live (obviously) in L.A. and I hear, "undocumented," instead of, "illegal immigrant," never, "Hispanic."

And where did I scream, "RAAAACCIIIISTTTTTTTT!!!!" about closing the borders and getting rid of folks? Bet you can't back up that claim either.

Just so I know, tell me what my thoughts and opinions are on immgration please. And while you're reading my mind, let me know if my understanding of varieties as they relate to ideals is correct.

JoeEllison

12th October 2007, 09:40 PM

Lonewulf

13th October 2007, 05:15 AM

Um...no, actually, I don't. I checked the TOS...nothing in there about that.
No you don't... what? I never claimed that you "had" to do anything, nor that anything I request you to actually do is mentioned in the TOS.

Actually, I don't think you are doing it deliberately, but you are a product of your environment.
Ah, yes, the old, "People are making you do iiiiiiit!" whine.

You've been trained to exercise a sort of smarmy dishonesty in things you say, which then allows you to say, that no, in fact, you din't say that.
Except that I haven't been dishonest. I've stated how I think things "should" be, you make the snap judgment that I'm saying that it isn't that way, or that I personally put stuff in my body that I don't. I never said that I did drugs, yet you assume I abuse drugs. I never said that we should do away with government, yet you assume I'm an anarchist. I have shown no affiliation with a political ideology, and you assume I'm a liberal. I say that certain corporations take advantage of illegal aliens, and then you turn it into a "corporations are all evil" spiel and "immigrants are all poor, hard-working peasants that can do no wrong". Being that I never said any of that, and you have yet to verify it, that is the definition of lying. I do not think that all corporations are "evil", but I do propose that they are there to make a profit, and certain managers are willing to break the law or do ethically questionable things to turn over a profit. I know, it's a crazy suggestion -- that some people may actually be willing to exploit other people!

And that's what you do.
Wrong.
You'll make a good politician some day.
Hardly. I actually have scruples, I hear politicians with those don't succeed very well.
LOL. Yeah, no wonder. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
You must be delusional then. ;)
You is what you is...
And I is not what you think I is.
you can call yourself a ham sandwhich, but that doesn't mean that's what you are.
And you can call me a ham sandwhich (sic), but that doesn't mean that's what I am.
Yes, I know you said you had a job. Having a job and getting paid for it is not the same.
I had a job. I got paid for it. Though I didn't really get a paycheck, it was wired to my bank account. Sorry.
I guess my terminology has confused you. I mean you were not the guy signing the paychecks; you were BEING paid, not the one PAYING others to do a job.
Ah, so now you're switching the goalposts! Honest!
Yeah..um, not sure whether you've heard, but Wiki is pretty much considered fairly unreliable.
Except you were the one that said to "wiki it". So you intentionally told me to use a "fairly unreliable" source, so you could whine, "Wikipedia is unreliaaaaaable!"

Lol. :D

And you talk about how others are "dishonest". But don't worry, I don't blame you. I know it comes from reading Ann Coulter's literary vomit every day.
And this last challenge(?) sorta kinda puts paid to the question of whether or not you um...imbibe.
Ah, so you refuse to verify any of your claims. The first bastion of the liar.

Tokenconservative

13th October 2007, 07:44 AM

"Master"? "MASTER"??!! :rolleyes:

:dl:

Yeah...better than "my Precious," I figger.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th October 2007, 07:56 AM

Experience still has to be learned from, it's not sufficient on its own.

For example, look at Token's usage of 'this mortal coil' in that sentence.

He's using 'coil' in the sense of 'world' or 'Earth', but it doesn't mean that. It means strife and suffering, and is used in the sense of a burden which has to be carried (or put down, eventually).

This a small point of course, but Token says he has a degree in English Literature. Presumably he has encountered 'this mortal coil' in its most famous context, Hamlet's soliloquy. But he still doesn't understand its meaning.

Yet he feels justified in sneering at Lonewulf's 'ignorance', on the basis of his own 'experience'.

f this is true, Token, may I suggest you seek help ?

This a description of work-addiction. I thought you had young children ? If so, you are neglecting your duties as a father by working 15-16 hours a day, and at week-ends as well.

And you spend enough time here bragging about how much money you earn, so it can't simply be a matter of financial necessity.

Another question arises though. In the last two weeks, you've made over 300 posts here. How can you do that and also work 15-16 hours a day ? Given you've got to fit the rest of your personal life into those 8-9 non-work hours as well ?

Seriously. How do you do it ?

LOL! A very small point, indeed (look up various uses of the word "small," please?).

There's a whole thread in here about usage, connotative and denotative meanings and suchlike..."mortal coil" may not have, in the orginal meant what I used it to mean, but it means that now. So I will continue to use it that way, you use it your way...and I am sure you are gaining a following of well, a couple anyway, of other Church Ladies and the like...say, when you say "when," do you pronounce it "h-when"?

Small group, but exclusive, to be sure.

I did not say I'd learnt from my experiences...quite the opposite in many cases. Not much to learn about meeting a payroll in this regard: either you have done so, or you have not. If you have not (and like LW, only been on the rc'vg end of same) you may not know much about what all goes into doing so, such as all the in-kinds and taxes that an employer must pay. Couple that with LWs youth, and it's even more likely your understanding of this will be limited. Please note my use of the term "more likely." Go look that up and see what it means.

Hmmm...I thought I made it pretty clear that I am not "sneering" at LW's youthful ingorance. I guess like many, you don't know that "ignorance" does not mean "stupid," huh?

LOL! Thanks for the parenting advice.

My kids are in high school...young to me, but hardly in need of moment-by-moment Daddy time. I imagine any kids of yours would need that. But that's why we have parole officers and social workers.

And can you provide a link--LIIIIINNNKKKKKK!!!!!--from some qualified source that identifies a self-employed person working the hours necessary as "work addiction"?

Thanks for the free, online psych profile, though. I always find these to be worth at least thrice the cost!

Final question: simple. I key at over 80wpm, lots of what I do for work is waiting for various forms of communication to come to me and dolling the work out to others.

Maybe you need to do a little work on your keystroke time and um...stop spending time counting my posts?

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th October 2007, 08:01 AM

See the first quoted post above. Looks to me like you sure as hell did. Stop trying to pin this on the OH NOES LIBERAL MEDIA. You've failed to back up that claim. I live (obviously) in L.A. and I hear, "undocumented," instead of, "illegal immigrant," never, "Hispanic."

And where did I scream, "RAAAACCIIIISTTTTTTTT!!!!" about closing the borders and getting rid of folks? Bet you can't back up that claim either.

Just so I know, tell me what my thoughts and opinions are on immgration please. And while you're reading my mind, let me know if my understanding of varieties as they relate to ideals is correct.

As with many others, since you are a liberal and therefore are virtually incapable of telling the truth, much less incorporating it into your ideology, I simply read what you say to identify you for what you are.

For example: "Tokie is a RAAACCCCIIIIISTTTTTTT!!!' 'cuz he said "Hispanic" to mean "illegal alien invader!!!"

Well, no...turns out, I din't. But that does not stop you from doing what lefties from Lenin to Goebbels to Chomsky, to Gore, to the Billary do so well: tell a lie loudly and long enough and it becomes the truth.

Which is what you are doing here. You believe that if you simply repeat the non-evidentiary clame that Tokie is a RAAAACCCCIIIISTTTTTTT!!! it will become truth simply by that repetion. It's only unfortunate that you don't have some means of making that actually shriek at readers from the screen to cement the point, huh?

Your thoughts and opinion on immigration are your own. Your thoughts and opinions on ILLEGAL immigration are those of your movement, the far, far left, bent on the destruction of America by any means.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th October 2007, 08:03 AM

As a guitarist, I have a possibly unique view on the America/Mexico border:

Let's talk Fender Stratocaster for a moment. The Made in Mexico(MIM) Standard Strat is about $400. The equivalent American Standard Strat is $950-1100. The difference? About 100 miles and slight differences in materials. The amount of work? Identical for just about everyone involved.

Now, how can any of us reasonably and logically tell a "Fender Mexico" worker that his efforts are worth less than a "Fender America" worker, for the exact same job? The only real difference, we tell them, is that 100 mile difference... so what, exactly, is the reason that they should respect the border?

Wow.

Now see...this is EXACTLY the sort of "logic" I expect from leftist quarters.

I wonder if any of you great thinkers in here, those shrieking at me about how illogical _I_ am, can tell me first IF you find anything wrong with this "reasoning" by one of your own, and if so, WHAT is wrong with it.

Yeah...I imagine a few of you actually can, but since this guy is a fellow leftie....you'd sooner cut off an arm than do that, huh? Much easier to just shriek RAAAACCCIIISSTTTTTT!!! at me.

Tokie

Tokenconservative

13th October 2007, 08:18 AM

No you don't...

Except that I haven't been dishonest. I've stated how I think things "should" be, you make the snap judgment that I'm saying that it isn't that way, or that I personally put stuff in my body that I don't. I never said that I did drugs, yet you assume I abuse drugs. I never said that we should do away with government, yet you assume I'm an anarchist. I have shown no affiliation with a political ideology, and you assume I'm a liberal. I say that certain corporations take advantage of illegal aliens, and then you turn it into a "corporations are all evil" spiel and "immigrants are all poor, hard-working peasants that can do no wrong". Being that I never said any of that, and you have yet to verify it, that is the definition of lying. I do not think that all corporations are "evil", but I do propose that they are there to make a profit, and certain managers are willing to break the law or do ethically questionable things to turn over a profit. I know, it's a crazy suggestion -- that some people may actually be willing to exploit other people!

And you can call me a ham sandwhich (sic), but that doesn't mean that's what I am.

I had a job. I got paid for it. Though I didn't really get a paycheck, it was wired to my bank account. Sorry.

Ah, so now you're switching the goalposts! Honest!

Except you were the one that said to "wiki it". So you intentionally told me to use a "fairly unreliable" source, so you could whine, "Wikipedia is unreliaaaaaable!"

And you talk about how others are "dishonest". But don't worry, I don't blame you. I know it comes from reading Ann Coulter's literary vomit every day.

Ah, so you refuse to verify any of your claims. The first bastion of the liar.

LOL!

Like many lefties, you don't know what a lie or dishonesty is. See, you believe that an honest mistake, like Coulter (since you brought her up) said in her book about one of America's greatest--but villified by you on the left--heroes, Joe McCarthy, that some person or other was the father of some other person when in actual fact he was the grandfather. I remember one of YOUR heroes, Al Franken shrieking about this "liiiieeeeeee!!!!" for days on end. And when Der Schlickster said, lip a-quiver, "I-I never had sex with that woman!" why, that was indeed true! A couple doze BJs is not "sex," right!?

I love lefties (and that's what anarchists like you are) and their ability to twist the language as they attempt their best tp obfuscate, misrepresent, exagerate, hyperbolize and outright lie--even if they don't know that's what they are doing. For proof of this, look only to your "definition" of lying. I may very well be making inaccurate assumptions about you (you are, after all, very cagey). That's not LYYYYIIIINNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!! as you assert, but rather simply (possibly--we'll see) being "wrong." But you don't understand that distinction, so long as a conservative is in the crosshairs. Of course, a liberal is neither ever wrong, nor even capable of lying, in your mind.

On exploitation: as an (unconfessed) anarchist, you believe that anyone who makes a buck on the labor of another is "exploiting" that other. You have and can have no concept of the notion of a free trade of commodities such as labor for $$. You believe that $$ should come to "the workers of the world!" from the "exploiters!!!" (corporations) with absolutely no exchange, that in fact, those who would offer employment are criminals and should be treated as such because "employment" is just another way of saying "exploitation."

You keep going back to your employment and conflating and equivocating with that. What you said was that you had met/made a payroll. You apparently misunderstood this phrasing to mean that you were once gainfully employed and ON a payroll. It does not mean that. But now, since you have been caught demonstrating the very ignorance I claim you do, you must go back to that in the (typical, leftist) attempt to "prove" that the converstation was about something else: Lenin discovered this, Goebbels used it best, the likes of Chomsky, Zinn, Kennedy, Clinton et al., continue to use it...and here you are, as well. Sorry, just because you tell a lie over and over and over, doing so does not make it the truth.

I suggested Wiki because you'd mentioned it previously. If I told you to jump of a roof....

I don't read Coulter every day. In fact, I rarely read her columns. I sometimes read her books. A bit bombastic, but accurate and pretty good reading. What...I should read Algore, instead? Al Franken?

No thanks. I already studied up on PT Barnum years ago.

Tokie

Lonewulf

13th October 2007, 08:59 AM

LOL!

Like many lefties, you don't know what a lie or dishonesty is.
I'd say "burn", but I'm pretty sure it's hard to be insulted by the delusional... or liars.

It's funny how you talk about dishonesty and what it means. You seem to think my dishonesty is equivalent to your inability to talk for five seconds without leaping to erroneous conclusions. ;)

See, you believe that an honest mistake, like Coulter (since you brought her up) said in her book about one of America's greatest--but villified by you on the left--heroes, Joe McCarthy, that some person or other was the father of some other person when in actual fact he was the grandfather. I remember one of YOUR heroes, Al Franken shrieking about this "liiiieeeeeee!!!!" for days on end. And when Der Schlickster said, lip a-quiver, "I-I never had sex with that woman!" why, that was indeed true! A couple doze BJs is not "sex," right!?
This is what I love. People like you think so much in terms of black and white, liberal and conservative, you assume that people like me HAVE to "love" people like Al Franken or Bill Clinton.

See, in your little 2-dimensional world, there is no such thing as varying personal opinion. Which is probably why you would defend people like Coulter no matter what they say, including that we need to bomb the Muslims and convert them all to Christianity, or that the "perfect society" is made of all Christians. Then, you "project" yourself onto me by claiming that Al Franken and Clinton are my "heroes", because you've already put me in the "lefty" wing.

I love lefties (and that's what anarchists like you are)
Oh, I love how you throw that out there!

It seems that your philosophy is that if you tell a lie long enough, people just might actually come to believe it.

and their ability to twist the language as they attempt their best tp obfuscate, misrepresent, exagerate, hyperbolize and outright lie--even if they don't know that's what they are doing. For proof of this, look only to your "definition" of lying. I may very well be making inaccurate assumptions about you (you are, after all, very cagey). That's not LYYYYIIIINNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!!
Ooooh, nice whine there! :D

I could give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you keep repeating your assumptions on me even though I inform you that you are, indeed, wrong. Then, when challenged to provide data that would demonstrate that you are telling the truth and have a real reason to make such assumptions on me, you back down.

That tells me that you are probably lying.

as you assert, but rather simply (possibly--we'll see) being "wrong."
Sure, you are wrong. But the fact that you keep making accusations without backing them up even when repeatedly asked to, it's more likely that you're lying. A liar is more likely to ignore any requests for evidence or verification for any of their claims. Someone that is simply wrong, and is honest, is more likely to try to verify their claim, or apologize for being wrong.

But you don't understand that distinction, so long as a conservative is in the crosshairs.
Sure, it's you being a "conservative", not an attack.

Of course, a liberal is neither ever wrong, nor even capable of lying, in your mind.
Really? Wow, I didn't know that, and I own my mind!

Oh, wait, this is another personal attack that is wrong. Are you going to repeat this even after it's pointed out to be wrong?

On exploitation: as an (unconfessed) anarchist
I don't confess to being something that I'm not.

You have yet to back up your claim that I am an anarchist, btw.

you believe that anyone who makes a buck on the labor of another is "exploiting" that other.
If they hire someone illegally, by illegally paying them minimum wage, I'm not quite sure why I should consider their business legit.

You have and can have no concept of the notion of a free trade of commodities such as labor for $$.
I understand labor for $$. I also understand "illegal" and "unethical", which I advise you look up. Wikipedia it, if you wish.

You believe that $$ should come to "the workers of the world!" from the "exploiters!!!" (corporations) with absolutely no exchange
On the contrary, I am fully aware that labor is necessary for a worker to be paid.

Is this another outright lie of yours, or are you just good at serially being wrong?

that in fact, those who would offer employment are criminals and should be treated as such because "employment" is just another way of saying "exploitation."
I do not think that employment is the same as exploitation. I think that hiring someone just so you can pay them below minimum wage is actually exploiting someone, though.

But I'm glad to see you support corrupt corporations. Blind loyalty is good for people like you, right?

Support everyone, even the criminals, as long as they're rich? ;)

You keep going back to your employment and conflating and equivocating with that. What you said was that you had met/made a payroll. You apparently misunderstood this phrasing to mean that you were once gainfully employed and ON a payroll.

Dictionary.com

1. a list of employees to be paid, with the amount due to each.

I was on a list of employees to be paid, with an amount due to me. My amount was paid, and filed to the IRS.

You must be using a definition of "payroll" that is foreign to me, but it's a small matter. People like you take any chance to try to appear to superior to your superiors. ;)

It does not mean that. But now, since you have been caught demonstrating the very ignorance I claim you do, you must go back to that in the (typical, leftist) attempt to "prove" that the converstation was about something else: Lenin discovered this, Goebbels used it best, the likes of Chomsky, Zinn, Kennedy, Clinton et al., continue to use it...and here you are, as well. Sorry, just because you tell a lie over and over and over, doing so does not make it the truth.
Ooooh, comparing me to Lenin, Goebbels, and Chomsky, just because I say that I had a job, was on the payroll, and got paid. :eek:

Is it tough to be as delusional as you are?

I suggested Wiki because you'd mentioned it previously.

If I told you to jump of a roof....
LOL, that's great. Nice cover.

If you told me to jump off a roof, I'd tell you who you could go have intercourse with. ;)

I don't read Coulter every day. In fact, I rarely read her columns. I sometimes read her books. A bit bombastic, but accurate and pretty good reading.
I find it hilarious that you think so.

So, you believe all that Coulter's said on evolution? That's great. :D

Tokenconservative

13th October 2007, 11:58 AM

I'd say "burn", but I'm pretty sure it's hard to be insulted by the delusional... or liars.

It's funny how you talk about dishonesty and what it means. You seem to think my dishonesty is equivalent to your inability to talk for five seconds without leaping to erroneous conclusions. ;)

This is what I love. People like you think so much in terms of black and white, liberal and conservative, you assume that people like me HAVE to "love" people like Al Franken or Bill Clinton.

See, in your little 2-dimensional world, there is no such thing as varying personal opinion. Which is probably why you would defend people like Coulter no matter what they say, including that we need to bomb the Muslims and convert them all to Christianity, or that the "perfect society" is made of all Christians. Then, you "project" yourself onto me by claiming that Al Franken and Clinton are my "heroes", because you've already put me in the "lefty" wing.

Oh, I love how you throw that out there!

It seems that your philosophy is that if you tell a lie long enough, people just might actually come to believe it.

Ooooh, nice whine there! :D

I could give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you keep repeating your assumptions on me even though I inform you that you are, indeed, wrong. Then, when challenged to provide data that would demonstrate that you are telling the truth and have a real reason to make such assumptions on me, you back down.

That tells me that you are probably lying.

Sure, you are wrong. But the fact that you keep making accusations without backing them up even when repeatedly asked to, it's more likely that you're lying. A liar is more likely to ignore any requests for evidence or verification for any of their claims. Someone that is simply wrong, and is honest, is more likely to try to verify their claim, or apologize for being wrong.

Sure, it's you being a "conservative", not an attack.

Really? Wow, I didn't know that, and I own my mind!

Oh, wait, this is another personal attack that is wrong. Are you going to repeat this even after it's pointed out to be wrong?

I don't confess to being something that I'm not.

You have yet to back up your claim that I am an anarchist, btw.

If they hire someone illegally, by illegally paying them minimum wage, I'm not quite sure why I should consider their business legit.

I understand labor for $$. I also understand "illegal" and "unethical", which I advise you look up. Wikipedia it, if you wish.

On the contrary, I am fully aware that labor is necessary for a worker to be paid.

Is this another outright lie of yours, or are you just good at serially being wrong?

I do not think that employment is the same as exploitation. I think that hiring someone just so you can pay them below minimum wage is actually exploiting someone, though.

But I'm glad to see you support corrupt corporations. Blind loyalty is good for people like you, right?

Support everyone, even the criminals, as long as they're rich? ;)

Dictionary.com

1. a list of employees to be paid, with the amount due to each.

I was on a list of employees to be paid, with an amount due to me. My amount was paid, and filed to the IRS.

You must be using a definition of "payroll" that is foreign to me, but it's a small matter. People like you take any chance to try to appear to superior to your superiors. ;)

Ooooh, comparing me to Lenin, Goebbels, and Chomsky, just because I say that I had a job, was on the payroll, and got paid. :eek:

Is it tough to be as delusional as you are?

LOL, that's great. Nice cover.

If you told me to jump off a roof, I'd tell you who you could go have intercourse with. ;)

I find it hilarious that you think so.

So, you believe all that Coulter's said on evolution? That's great. :D

While entire dissertations (though Gaia knows what college or univeristy would allow it...Bob Jones, maybe?) could be written on leftist dissembling, to say nothing of outright dishonesty, nothing speaks to this quite so well...truthfully as your own words. You make it very clear that you simply do not understand the difference between a lie and being in error.

I have no idea who you "love." It hardly matters. You've made quite clear what you are ideologically, and it is a favorite (Playbook) tactic of those on the left to shriek "NOT ME!!!" Meanwhile, there you are protesting the G8....

As to the "lefty wing...." If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I've heard Coulter's "bomb or convert them" quip in it's entirety and IN context (a marvelously refreshing approach that you should try). It's pretty clear that she was joking. Now, that's hard for a lefty like you to understand, because as a class, lefties are about as dour and humorless as old Soviet political bosses.

You seem confused. That's not my "philosophy." Actually, it's quite clearly a "philosophy" (?) of the left. Lenin (a communist) first said "the lie told often enough becomes the truth) and Hitler's man Goebbels ( A Nazi--socialist) put it to use. These are leftists. Like you.

Leftists nearly always tell those outside their circle that "you are wrong!!" when they are identified for what they are. It's a curious thing. You almost never hear a conservative denying that that's what he/she is. But it's virtually a given that if you say to a leftist "say, you're a leftist, huh?" they will vehemnently (and sometimes violently) deny it.

I don't have "data" about you. I have only your own words in here, and they clearly indicate your leftist leaning socio-political ideologies.

Followed by your, again, verifying this by your clear misunderstanding of the difference between truth and error. It is entirely possible that I've misread all your maundering ramblings of a socialist bent. This would not make me a "liar" it would simply make me "wrong."

My failure to provide "data" has more to do with my interest level than anything else. Sure, I could dig through all your lengthy and typically difficult-to-navigate posts and mine a wealth of "data" specifically identifying you for what you are. But I don't feel like it.

Followed by another typical (Playbook) leftist accusation: If we disagree, I am "attacking" you. I'm sorry, mayhaps I misremember: who is it who has been calling whom a "liar" and "delusional" and comparing me to Nazis for some dozen or more posts and is now claiming some classist superiority to me?

Now to our cases:
1. No, actually, you do not understand "illegal" in this context. You belive, apparently, that it is, in this context, equivalent to "unethical." If that's the case, then are you saying that the tens of millions of illegal aliens in America are "unethical"?

2. I did not say "on the payroll." I said "make (a) payroll." I have no idea whether/what Wiki has to say about this colloquialism. I've explained it to you a dozen times now. You said that you HAD, in fact, done so. I assumed that meant you had employed people, not simply that you had BEEN an employee...as would anyone at least marginally familiar with common terms in American business. And I am hardly comparing yo to those pesonages, I am merely inviting you to "Wiki" them so that you'll understand where a primary foundational underpinning of your entire socio-political ideology comes from. You believe that the lie told often (and loudly--thanks Dr. Goebbels!) enough becomes the truth.

3. I have no idea what Coulter has said or believes about evolution, and can't imagine why I would know or would care. Last I checked, she's a political commentator and writer not a theologian or professional in any of the biological disciplines.

4. Strawmen are rarely good ways to close an otherwise hysterical argument.

Tokie