why is american education so crappy?

[MattTheSkywalker]

You completely ignored what I said above. The rest of your post is a re-hash of populist / socialist crap - viewpoints like yours are EXACTLY why education never gets better!

dont forget its a recycled cardboard box, save a tree
remember, these kids that you want to take educational funding from are going to determin how much social security you get when you retire

I will plan for my own damn retirement!

one of those kids could be the one who develos a cure for the common cold

Or not. So what? It is not my responsibility to solve everyone else's problems! Does this even resonate with you?

one of those kids who now doesnt have funding for the drama program at school, is gonna feel like seeing what it would be like to shoot your tires out on the freeway

then he is a criminal. We certainly have money to deal with that.

our country is set up so we pay taxes for education and youth programs
if we keep paying, why are those programs being cut?

Um, it was set up without these taxes. Populist politicians have pandered to people like you to emplace the taxes.

since you dont have kids, our views are different

Bullshit! I pay taxes too. Neither view is inherently superior.

i'm worried about were my daughter will go to school,

Send her to private school. Or buy a house somewhere with good schools!

i'm worried about the money that i pay for her school going to war, which i am not in favor

your property taxes are not paying for war!

and less money in education=less computers, less dictionaries, less updates for textbooks, more students per teacher, more stressed teachers

if i dont make you happy because of how i feel about it, fine
at least we both agree that its not working

The problem is people like you who think everyone else should pay for their kids to be educated.

Fuck everyone who thinks this way!

 

[Dial_tone]

WTF ????

Those evil whites prevent Jamal or Antwan from learning because they are not in the same schools? Perhaps Jamal and Antwan should take personal responsibility for their own success or failure.

Actually, my name is Steve and my sister's is Cheryl....just a couple of negroes right outta "Leave It To Beaver"
.

 

[Code]

Yes, Saddam has religious beliefs that are essentially hard for fundementalist muslims may disagree with.

But there are very direct connections between Saddam's use and support of many terrorist which have long been established. He used them to remove those within the baathist regime that were not aligned with him in the mid-1980's and again in the early nineties.

Terrorist groups are a lot like start-ups looking for venture capital, they aren't very discriminatory who gives them cash, so long as it's not the US and in many cases even if it *is* the US.

I'm sorry, we're going to have to disagree on what we think are "direct threats to National Security." I don't think that Iraq was or is the major terrorist player you and some other people think they are. The fact that Saddam was a very secular leader goes against the very idiologies that fundamentalist terrorists represent. Alot of what you posted here doesn't even back up your claims (direct threats to national security).

Alternet.org seems like a pretty cool site though.

 

[Hengst]

Actually, my name is Steve and my sister's is Cheryl....just a couple of negroes right outta "Leave It To Beaver"
.

good answer......... LOL LOL LOL

 

[bluepeter]

nice ownage

Ownage on what? Ridiculous statements about the enormous threat Iraq posed to the US? Give me a break. That is not what was iterated by Dumb and Dumber in the Oval Office as their reasons for invading a country. Forget that for a moment and consider the myriad of dangers to US National security much more urgent than Iraq: North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. etc.

Talking semantics on this topic will get you nowhere, the facts are clear. Dumb and Dumber made it abundantly clear at the time that they were invading Iraq because they had WMD (they didn't) and because they had Al-Qaida ties (they had some tenuous meetings but never had any collaboration and the only reason this was listed as a reason was to gain public sympathy for the invasion as fear/anger over 9/11 clouded many peoples judgement). Done.

and Nubly, just because you don't have the intelligence to argue with me, don't go latching onto other peoples arguments that you can't understand other than to see it runs contrary to what I am saying.

 

[Beachbum1546]

i don't understand. btw i went to school in the US.

 

[Code]

Sarin gas *is* a WMD. No point in arguing it's impractical uses because terrorists do not care if they die as well.

The Kingdom of SA is considered (wrongfully) an allied nation, and thus their funding of terrorism can be brushed off (again, wrongfully).

Pakistan has far too many foibles with India to even consider the US, not sure what you're using there as a metric for threat status. And I'm not disputing your claim, it's just not as great a threat as other nations.

North Korea is being dealt with diplomatically, a measure the UN and the US tried for 12 years with Iraq.

Consider for a moment that Iraq and Afghanistan are to used as staging areas for other, more poignant capmaigns on ME nations that pose a great threat than the few you just listed. I know, it's a stretch to think that this is a campaign and not an oil grab, but set that aside for one minute and think about other ME & Northern African nations and their threat to US national security:

Syria: Currently uses Hezbollah as a military spec ops. Also develops WMD in conjunction with Iran and North Korea. Supported Iraq economically for many years. Also currently in violation of UN Resolution 425.

Iran: Overtly funds and hosts Al-Sadr's terrorist forces. A quote from a recent Israeli intelligence report, "Iran endeavors not to reveal its involvement in terror in public, both out of fear of an American response as well as its desire to avoid diplomatic imbroglios. This caution, which existed prior to the events of 9/11, has increased in the wake of those events and peaked with the inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil. Consequently, Iran has adopted the “dual role” policy: on the one hand, it aids terror organizations (including al-Qaida); on the other hand, its official spokespeople deny this. "

Libya: Acording to "Survey of Arab Affairs" (SAA:28 29 Iyar 5752 1 June 1992), Over the past twenty years, Libya has been foremost on the list of countries supporting terrorism. Upon seizing power in 1969, Muammar Qaddafi put the dissemination of his revolutionary ideology throughout the world at the top of Libya’s national agenda. The Libyan authorities earmarked vast economic and military resources for the realization of their "revolutionary goal: Libya established extensive ties with dozens of terrorist organizations around the world, providing these groups with varied assistance. Numerous terrorist attacks have been carried out on Libya’s behalf or with its help in Europe, Asia, South Africa and South America. Qaddafi has declared that the day his men would carry out attacks in North America as well, was not far off.

Mauritania: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1122704,00.html
(In this nation we're at least trying to bolster the local government instead of attacking them) Also, Mauritania officially endorses and trades in slavery.

Algeria: http://www.iss.co.za/PUBS/MONOGRAPHS/No74/Chap6.html

Ownage on what? Ridiculous statements about the enormous threat Iraq posed to the US? Give me a break. That is not what was iterated by Dumb and Dumber in the Oval Office as their reasons for invading a country. Forget that for a moment and consider the myriad of dangers to US National security much more urgent than Iraq: North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. etc.

Talking semantics on this topic will get you nowhere, the facts are clear. Dumb and Dumber made it abundantly clear at the time they were invading Iraq because they had WMD (they didn't) and because they had Al-Qaida ties (they had some tenuous meetings but never had any collaboration and the only reason this was listed as a reason was to gain public sympathy for the invasion as fear/anger over 9/11 clouded many peoples judgement). Done.

and Nubly, just because you don't have the intelligence to argue with me, don't go latching onto other peoples arguments that you can't understand other than to see it runs contrary to what I am saying. pwned

 

[Code]

For the record, I'm not doing any sort of ownage. A lot people seriously misunderstand the war on terror and it's not their fault. It's being sold to them incorrectly.

If people would/could spend some time getting to know some folks from the ME and toss in some research they'd get a better understanding of how and why we're doing it.

The US cannot declare war on a nation because of terrorist actions. We got into Iraq the best way we could, we need a better foothold in the ME region to do any serious work against ME/northern african terrorist groups.

 

[bluepeter]

For the record, I'm not doing any sort of ownage. A lot people seriously misunderstand the war on terror and it's not their fault. It's being sold to them incorrectly.

If people would/could spend some time getting to know some folks from the ME and toss in some research they'd get a better understanding of how and why we're doing it.

The US cannot declare war on a nation because of terrorist actions. We got into Iraq the best way we could, we need a better foothold in the ME region to do any serious work against ME/northern african terrorist groups.

I totally understand and totally disagree with that. In my mind, you do not spend $250+ billion (and create a menagerie of 'terrorists' that hate your country while you're at it, something you claim you're trying to wipe out) on the invasion/occupation of a country just to gain a 'foothold' to spread your sphere of influence or strike out at other more dangerous nations. I'm not necessarily saying that wasn't the thinking (it could have been) but if it was, I think that's wrong and I also think they grossly miscalculated the ramifications.

Also, a couple of explosive devices with 'traces' of sarin gas in them that were likely long forgotten doesn't constitute a WMD nor a National threat in my mind

 

[Code]

Well, if Afghanistan and Iraq are the weakest nations and the only ones we have immediate reasons for going into, we have no choice but to use them as points of origins. But I get your point and I agree with it, I don't think a war on terror is going to solve the terror problem.

Revamping foriegn policy will.

I totally understand and totally disagree with that. In my mind, you do not spend $250+ billion (and create a menagerie of 'terrorists' that hate your country while you're at it, something you claim you're trying to wipe out) on the invasion/occupation of a country just to gain a 'foothold' to spread your sphere of influence or strike out at other more dangerous nations. I'm not necessarily saying that wasn't the thinking (it could have been) but if it was, I think that's wrong and I also think they grossly miscalculated the ramifications.

Also, a couple of explosive devices with 'traces' of sarin gas in them that were likely long forgotten doesn't constitute a WMD nor a National threat in my mind