The farthest thing I see on the bottom left corner is 3500. Thats why I said there has to be more to it
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2015 12:46 AM by Pigs N Heat BBQ.)
(03-25-2015 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote: 1. "whether the implied more spending = better schools" <== that has nothing to do with what this argument is about. What we are arguing is 1) which party is most likely to be cutting education funding/not giving out as much funding & 2) which party is more likely to weaken the power of teachers unions. This has absolutely nothing to do with quality of education by state, bush vs obama, how schools funds should be allocated, etc.
That increased spending results in better schools is implicit in the argument for higher funding, otherwise what's the point? If that's not the case then you are arguing for wasting money are you not?
I would agree with you that educational spending is related to the power of the teaching unions but how those funds are allocated is central to the argument.
Spending more money does not solve problems per se, resolving specific issues which may cost money solves problems (potentially). If your argument about money and teaching unions is unrelated to improving education then that's motivated by politics and greed, not the good of the people, people who at the end of the day are paying for the whole thing and in whose interest the government and education system are supposed to act.
What the heck are you even talking about? This conversation was started over a comment about political contributions and is simply an explanation of why said political contributions go to one party.
You said that whether or not more spending = better schools has nothing to do with an argument over parties cutting or increasing school spending.
I said that they are one and the same discussion, because without linking increased spending to increased quality (to what extent if any), arguing for the former makes no sense.
I think Owl is doing a better job of pushing this question than I could, but you implied that connection and now you're backing away from justifying it by questioning its relevance to the argument.
(03-26-2015 12:27 AM)john01992 Wrote: You are some piece of work dude. You are asking about talking points from a particular argument, but are not interested in using those talking points for that particular argument (the only argument they were intended for).
I'm questioning the validity of those talking points. What argument they may or may not have been intended for is irrelevant to the issue of whether they are valid or not.
Quote:Put your money where your mouth is and show me where I introduced that.
Post #49 is the first time the word "quality" appears in this thread. And the author of that post appears to be you.
Quote:The whole point of that graph was to show a basic concept (that dems are more favorable to spending on education) because apparently that basic concept which anyone who remotely follows politics knows, was foreign to him.
Yes, but you paired spending with quality (post #49 again), apparently implying some causal link. Not entirely clear, but I think that causal link is what he's questioning.
In post #49 the term quality was an off topic one-liner and right after that we never discussed quality at all, but rather the amount of spending. It clearly wasn't an attempt on my part to steer the convo in that direction nor did that happen. At this point you are just reaching for a technicality. The whole point of using that word is that there is no way that you can say a party that is pushing for more education funding is somehow "anti-education." And since you have such a knack for searching through posts, how come you ignored the words that come right before it?
Quote:fighting to improve
In other words, I basically said trying, attempting, working towards etc. At no point can that be interpreted as my saying that there policies are successful at improving quality. But it doesn't matter because again, that was a one liner that was unrelated to the rest of that post and any of the future posts that I made.
None of my posts were about quality (including #49 despite my mentioning that word). Every single one of my posts so far has been arguing about why unions favor the dems not an advocation for quality of education. So to take comments & graphs that I used that were intended for that, and to in any way, shape, or form say they were used for something else is a flat out lie on your end at best. At worst it is a blatant attempt to misrepresent another posters comments.
You are putting words in my mouth and implying that I am taking a certain position that is 1) a position that I disagree with 2) a position I have argued against several times in the past and 3) implying that I used evidence/facts/logics in a way that I consider weak and unfounded.
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2015 01:03 AM by john01992.)
(03-25-2015 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote: 1. "whether the implied more spending = better schools" <== that has nothing to do with what this argument is about. What we are arguing is 1) which party is most likely to be cutting education funding/not giving out as much funding & 2) which party is more likely to weaken the power of teachers unions. This has absolutely nothing to do with quality of education by state, bush vs obama, how schools funds should be allocated, etc.
That increased spending results in better schools is implicit in the argument for higher funding, otherwise what's the point? If that's not the case then you are arguing for wasting money are you not?
I would agree with you that educational spending is related to the power of the teaching unions but how those funds are allocated is central to the argument.
Spending more money does not solve problems per se, resolving specific issues which may cost money solves problems (potentially). If your argument about money and teaching unions is unrelated to improving education then that's motivated by politics and greed, not the good of the people, people who at the end of the day are paying for the whole thing and in whose interest the government and education system are supposed to act.
What the heck are you even talking about? This conversation was started over a comment about political contributions and is simply an explanation of why said political contributions go to one party.
You said that whether or not more spending = better schools has nothing to do with an argument over parties cutting or increasing school spending.
I said that they are one and the same discussion, because without linking increased spending to increased quality (to what extent if any), arguing for the former makes no sense.
I think Owl is doing a better job of pushing this question than I could, but you implied that connection and now you're backing away from justifying it by questioning its relevance to the argument.
In a general discussion about education & funding that may be true. But this is anything but a general discussion. This is a concentrated discussion intended to solve one question and one question only.
This was a stupid move on the states' part and is one area where the GOP needs to either tell it's base that it cannot impose religious doctrine upon the nation or divorce itself from the Christian Right altogether. While I find the comparisons of the Blacks struggle for equality in this nation to Gay Marriage irrational, the result of the Civil Rights Movement was that intrinsic discrimination is illegal. I have tried to tell many Southerns that while I wasn't alive during the 1960's, I sure as hell don't want to relive it. And that is what will happen if the people don't acknowledge that this is a dumb fight that will only set back a region that took almost 50 years to heal the scares of those prior sins.
(03-25-2015 04:15 PM)john01992 Wrote: I know you have made this statement a dozen times or so in the past. But it doesn't become any less true the more you say it. You speak nearly word for word how my generation thinks. You can find no shortage of people my age who support small govt, deregulation, gun rights, & a friendly business environment. But the homophobic BS is impossible to get over. The GOP is effectively shutting themselves out of the largest generation at a critical time when they hit that late 20s/early 30s age when they typically crossover to the conservative faction.
john0, even if the GOP became socially begin, I don't think you or many of those in your demographic would vote for republican. You's simply hold their former position against them.
(03-25-2015 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote: The years don't really matter, it's the general trend that matters. I seriously doubt that the 10 lowest schools will suddenly jump to the top within a couple of years (and vice versa). Plus if you play around with google that chart isn't far off from what the stats say.
What does pre Obama have to do with anything? The argument blunder & I are having wasn't focused on his policies specifically. It's about which party is more responsible for attempts to cut funding and attempts to reduce the power of teachers unions.
Why are you under the impression that more money for schools will generate better results? Cutting funding could actually improve teacher pay is it could reduce the administrative overhead. And I think the efforts of the Teacher's Union in DC and Atlanta speak volumes about their efficacy.
So today, a major Indiana employer pulled out of the state, stating the bill as the reason.
I think the NCAA will do nothing on its own. I would hope that the liberals start to put pressure on the NCAA to enact a 'no discrimination rule' that states the following.
1) No NCAA institution can discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or marital status in admissions, athletic participation, coaching employment, or fan access.
2) No NCAA tournament, bowl, or championship event can take place where fans could be subjected to discrimination on the same basis.
3) NCAA members would be required to not transact any business with entities that do not sign a binding non-discrimination act covering employment, customer access, and benefits.
Indiana's law is small potatoes. The real problem are the hundreds of jobs sanctioned by the NCAA that Gays or Jews are not able to access.
There is an organization for schools that wish to discriminate. The NCCAA (National Christian Collegiate Athletic Assocation).
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2015 06:25 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
(03-24-2015 03:47 PM)dbackjon Wrote: OK NCAA - you made a big deal about boycotting South Carolina over the Confederate Flag, now the site of both your premier sporting event and your headquarters is getting ready to pass a bill allowing outright discrimination against LGBT's.
Put your money where your mouth is - move the FINAL FOUR out of Indianapolis, and move your headquarters.
Oh no a Bakery might decline to make a gay wedding cake, the horror of it.
Not to get into a discussion more suited for the Spin Room, but it IS horrible.. Your Establishment Clause rights don't extend to using them to violate the Equal Protection rights of others.
Okay Frank, help me understand your viewpoint a little better...
Suppose a businesswoman in Nevada whose business is prostitution (which is legal in the state) claims that because she is a lesbian, she only wants to sell her services to other lesbians, and as a result, refuses to sell them to straight men?
(03-25-2015 10:09 PM)john01992 Wrote: Do you know what a title is?
Does it have a source?
Does it have a date?
What proposition are you attempting to advance by presenting it?
That he likes blue lines?
What I got is that the more liberal a state is, the more money they spend on whatever it is that chart is about. If it is education, I can tell you from experience that more money spent on education has little bearing on results. Often, because of how it is allocated. If much of it ends up in the central administration........ BUT - even if ALL of it goes into the classroom, with the exact same teachers, not much changes. This nation has been throwing more and more money at education for generations now and scores have been getting worse and worse. But, for the simpleton left, it is all about symbolism, not substance. It works because so many folks don't pay attention. Advocating spending more on education means that during the next election cycle, they can boast that they want to spend more and the meanies on the right want to cut education, so little Suzie won't have all the supplies the school needs to help her learn. Symbolism. The right generally believes in actual results, not just good intentions. So, cutting the fat is not necessarily a bad thing.
John doesn't know this, apparently. His indoctrination has been strong.
(03-24-2015 03:47 PM)dbackjon Wrote: OK NCAA - you made a big deal about boycotting South Carolina over the Confederate Flag, now the site of both your premier sporting event and your headquarters is getting ready to pass a bill allowing outright discrimination against LGBT's.
Put your money where your mouth is - move the FINAL FOUR out of Indianapolis, and move your headquarters.
Oh no a Bakery might decline to make a gay wedding cake, the horror of it.
Not to get into a discussion more suited for the Spin Room, but it IS horrible.. Your Establishment Clause rights don't extend to using them to violate the Equal Protection rights of others.
Okay Frank, help me understand your viewpoint a little better...
Suppose a businesswoman in Nevada whose business is prostitution (which is legal in the state) claims that because she is a lesbian, she only wants to sell her services to other lesbians, and as a result, refuses to sell them to straight men?
Would this also be "horrible"?
Your example doesn't meet the standard of protected class. Straight men have no special status under which to claim discrimination.
If the NCAA wants to pull championship events from the state just like SC, that is their choice and I'm fine with it. I think it is silly in both cases, but they are a voluntary organization of colleges so I'm unsure what the problem would be.
/
When does the NCAA start boycotting Indiana?
