Who can honestly believe that Obama/ the democratic party are running a damn thing?

[Parker2112]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/29/us-banks-off-the-hook-until-2022


<H1>US banks off the hook until 2022

Political reality has forced compromise into the final version of the financial regulation reform bill in the US

It was billed by Barack Obama as the toughest crackdown on Wall Street since the great depression. But top US banks could be given until 2022 to comply with the so-called Volcker rule, which is supposed to restrict financial institutions' risker trading activities.
A string of delays and extension periods written into a final version of Congress's financial regulation reform bill means that firms such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs could exploit loopholes until 2022 before withdrawing from "illiquid" funds such as private equity. The long gestation period is an example of the degree of compromise inserted into the package following months of lobbying on Capitol Hill by powerful banks.
"You can't just say 'stop', you can't just say 'unwind,'" said Lawrence Kaplan, a lawyer at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, who said the delay was a dose of political reality. "These things have contracts and detailed legal frameworks. You can't undo them without doing considerable harm."
The Volcker rule, championed by formed Federal Reserve boss Paul Volcker, stops banks from engaging in "proprietary trading" whereby they trade with their own capital, rather than clients' money. It also severely restricts their investments in high-risk hedge funds and private equity ventures.
Language in the act, according to Bloomberg News, allows for a six-month study and a further nine months of rule-making. The measure is supposed to become effective 12 months after the final rule is laid, then banks have two years to conform. But if they need to, they can apply for a three-year extension. On top of that, a five-year moratorium is available for "illiquid" funds that are hard to unwind.
Complicated caveats in the bill are subject to interpretation. A spokesman for Jeff Merkley, a Democrat who proposed various changes to the rule, told Bloomberg that the maximum delay was supposed to be nine years.
Other measures in Obama's reforms include the creation of a consumer protection agency, the introduction of a vote by shareholders' on boardroom pay and new powers for authorities to seize troubled financial institutions.
For Wall Street, the Volcker rule and curbs on derivatives trading are the most contentious changes. In a research note, analyst Jason Goldberg of Barclays Capital said JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup would be most affected by a ban on proprietary trading. Taken together with the rest of the regulatory reform bill, Goldberg estimated that Obama's crackdown could cut earnings at 26 leading banks by 14% in 2013, eliminating nearly $18bn of profit.
</H1>

[CosmicCowboy]

You still don't get it. smoke and mirrors. He knows whats in the bill. When the bill passes he will get in front of his teleprompter and give a wonderful speech about how he just took on the evil wall street bankers and won. Don't you understand that in his mind, just saying it makes it so?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You still don't get it. smoke and mirrors. He knows whats in the bill. When the bill passes he will get in front of his teleprompter and give a wonderful speech about how he just took on the evil wall street bankers and won. Don't you understand that in his mind, just saying it makes it so?

it's amazing that you can read his mind. What's even more bizarre is that you're in tune with his motives. All of this without ever meeting the man..:toast

[Parker2112]

Youre personalizing it. Your pointing your comments at Obama. You need to pull your head out of your conservative ass and realize who is calling the shots in this piece of legislation.

Realize that your government has been overrun and regardless which party secures the vote, the same people who killed this regulatory attempt maintain control, and are about to bankrupt the damn country.

These mofos damn near bankrupted us once, and our government doesnt even have the teeth to protect our best interests, even in the face of our ultimate demise?

Wrap your head around that for a while, and stop thinking along party lines.

[Wild Cobra]

You still don't get it. smoke and mirrors. He knows whats in the bill. When the bill passes he will get in front of his teleprompter and give a wonderful speech about how he just took on the evil wall street bankers and won. Don't you understand that in his mind, just saying it makes it so?
I wonder if God will break his teleprompter again?

[CosmicCowboy]

it's amazing that you can read his mind. What's even more bizarre is that you're in tune with his motives. All of this without ever meeting the man..:toast

Break it down. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

If my statement is incorrect, then

1) He doesn't know whats in the bill.

or

2) He will intentionally lie to us about what he knows is in the bill.

[Parker2112]

CC and WC: Two conservative schmucks who cant get off the end of Obamas dick long enough to see the calamity that is your government?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You still don't get it. smoke and mirrors. He knows whats in the bill. When the bill passes he will get in front of his teleprompter and give a wonderful speech about how he just took on the evil wall street bankers and won. Don't you understand that in his mind, just saying it makes it so?

Where does the article state that Obama doesn't know what's in the bill? Apparently the law is going to be phased in. Isn't that a good thing? I'm still trying to find where he lied.. I assume you'll show where you claim he's lying

[Wild Cobra]

Realize that your government has been overrun and regardless which party secures the vote, the same people who killed this regulatory attempt maintain control, and are about to bankrupt the damn country.

believe it or not, most of us who like the "tea party" agree with you. we simply most often take the lesser of two evils.

What if... Now seriously, start with these basic assumptions about a tea party supporter or member:

1) We don't like our current government officials.
2) We want to return the government to the people.

Think about their platforms from a neutral viewpoint. Yo may not like an item or two, but don't let that stop you from listening about other ideals.

Now what if, most the politicians supported by the various groups identifying with the "tea part," are supporting suck people, who also want to change Washington.

What if?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Break it down. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

If my statement is incorrect, then

1) He doesn't know whats in the bill.

or

2) He will intentionally lie to us about what he knows is in the bill.

What are you talking about? The article is pretty clear and none of it remotely resembles your 2 false choices..

[Wild Cobra]

CC and WC: Two conservative schmucks who cant get off the end of Obamas dick long enough to see the calamity that is your government?
Is that what your wet dreams consist of? Other people's dicks?

Wow....

[George Gervin's Afro]

believe it or not, most of us who like the "tea party" agree with you. we simply most often take the lesser of two evils.

What if... Now seriously, start with these basic assumptions about a tea party supporter or member:

1) We don't like our current government officials.
2) We want to return the government to the people.

Think about their platforms from a neutral viewpoint. Yo may not like an item or two, but don't let that stop you from listening about other ideals.

Now what if, most the politicians supported by the various groups identifying with the "tea part," are supporting suck people, who also want to change Washington.

What if?

Since the people elect their officials directly wouldn't that define 'the people's govt.'?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is that what your wet dreams consist of? Other people's dicks?

Wow....

you just proved his point.. nice job:toast

[Wild Cobra]

Where does the article state that Obama doesn't know what's in the bill? Apparently the law is going to be phased in. Isn't that a good thing? I'm still trying to find where he lied.. I assume you'll show where you claim he's lying
Really...

Maybe you should read the bill. Plenty of places prove the democrat rhetoric about it lies.

[CosmicCowboy]

What are you talking about? The article is pretty clear and none of it remotely resembles your 2 false choices..

You appear to be extremely confused. Or maybe it's just lack of reading comprehension. My response was a direct answer to your statement about reading Obama's mind.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Really...

Maybe you should read the bill. Plenty of places prove the democrat rhetoric about it lies.

Well since ,accoring to you, they are so obvious then point a few out. Tell us where they are lying

[Parker2112]

believe it or not, most of us who like the "tea party" agree with you. we simply most often take the lesser of two evils.

What if... Now seriously, start with these basic assumptions about a tea party supporter or member:

1) We don't like our current government officials.
2) We want to return the government to the people.

Think about their platforms from a neutral viewpoint. Yo may not like an item or two, but don't let that stop you from listening about other ideals.

Now what if, most the politicians supported by the various groups identifying with the "tea part," are supporting suck people, who also want to change Washington.

What if?

What if Obama is giving us exactly what we got under GWB, with a few minor health care scraps thrown in for good measure? Just what if any vote you cast for the establishment/career politicians is just going to keep us headed on the same path to hell? what if the two party system has been completely commandeered? what if your choice is no choice at all?

When the hell has a republican ever brought change? and when the hell havent we been offered change? change that keeps us headed closer and closer to the edge of a damn cliff?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You appear to be extremely confused. Or maybe it's just lack of reading comprehension. My response was a direct answer to your statement about reading Obama's mind.

I'm confused? You made a claim (by assuming his motives) and then call him a liar. I ask you to prove ieither claim and then you tell me I'm confused... Nice logic

[Parker2112]

you hopeless twits...I submit an article about the continuing bankrupting of US coffers and you want to talk about obamas teleprompter. Someone please close this thread...this is not the place for intelligent debate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well since ,accoring to you, they are so obvious then point a few out. Tell us where they are lying

[admiralsnackbar]

believe it or not, most of us who like the "tea party" agree with you. we simply most often take the lesser of two evils.


If the evils are equivalent, neither is lesser.

[George Gervin's Afro]

you hopeless twits...I submit an article about the continuing bankrupting of US coffers and you want to talk about obamas teleprompter. Someone please close this thread...this is not the place for intelligent debate.

They want to call him a liar concerning this legislation..when called on it they tehn claim "He's going to lie"..:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Since the people elect their officials directly wouldn't that define 'the people's govt.'?
Not when the only choices the people generally have are destine to follow the set path of an elite government. Both side. Empty promises. Those supported by the tea party are people who want to break this cycle of an ever growing government.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not when the only choices the people generally have are destine to follow the set path of an elite government. Both side. Empty promises. Those supported by the tea party are people who want to break this cycle of an ever growing government.

Yet they vote Republican...

[Wild Cobra]

What are you talking about? The article is pretty clear and none of it remotely resembles your 2 false choices..
Then the author of the article either lied, or didn't read the bill.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then the author of the article either lied, or didn't read the bill.

compared to what? what reference point are you dead enders using to make the claim that anybody is lying?

[CosmicCowboy]

I love it how you guys keep claiming that WC and I are conservative Republicans when we are clearly both middle of the road independents. I guess that just proves how far to the left you "big government" progressive guys really are.

[rjv]

If the evils are equivalent, neither is lesser.

great point but i believe it's all window dressing for some, and that applies to both sides of the aisle.

[Wild Cobra]

compared to what? what reference point are you dead enders using to make the claim that anybody is lying?
If the impression is that Omama can know the truth of the bill, -AND- he said things that were not true, then either Obama is lying, or the author is about what Obama said. Right?

[Parker2112]

They want to call him a liar concerning this legislation..when called on it they tehn claim "He's going to lie"..:rolleyes

these two will only go as far as thier conservative hatred for Obama will take them. Which aint too damn far.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I love it how you guys keep claiming that WC and I are conservative Republicans when we are clearly both middle of the road independents. I guess that just proves how far to the left you "big government" progressive guys really are.

I love it how you assume that anyone who disagrees with you that they are big govt progressives. Maybe some of us like to call you on your unsubstantiated claims.

[Winehole23]

Someone please close this thread...This forum is pretty much mod-free...


...this is not the place for intelligent debate.You don't have rub our noses in it; we're accustomed to wallowing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If the impression is that Omama can know the truth of the bill, -AND- he said things that were not true, then either Obama is lying, or the author is about what Obama said. Right?


It was billed by Barack Obama as the toughest crackdown on Wall Street since the great depression.

is this the statement for which you are basing your claim?


:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

I love it how you guys keep claiming that WC and I are conservative Republicans when we are clearly both middle of the road independents. I guess that just proves how far to the left you "big government" progressive guys really are.

Really? Middle of the road?

Tell me where you stand on the following:

Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists
Warrantless wiretapping
No-knock raids
Gov'ts claiming "state secrets" privileges
Death tax
Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Israel's blockades
Gay marriage
Illegal immigrant amnesty

I'm pretty sure you'll come down on the side of the right-wing on nearly every one of those categories. In fact, if you want, list which categories you do break from conservative/Republicans and side with liberals/Democrats instead. I'd be interested to hear them.

[Parker2112]

This forum is pretty much mod-free...

You don't have rub our noses in it; we're accustomed to wallowing.

lmao

[boutons_deux]

"both middle of the road independents"

:lol :lol :lol :lol

[Parker2112]

Really? Middle of the road?

Tell me where you stand on the following:

Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists
Warrantless wiretapping
No-knock raids
Gov'ts claiming "state secrets" privileges
Death tax
Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Israel's blockades
Gay marriage
Illegal immigrant amnesty

I'm pretty sure you'll come down on the side of the right-wing on nearly every one of those categories. In fact, if you want, list which categories you do break from conservative/Republicans and side with liberals/Democrats instead. I'd be interested to hear them.

dont forget how they stand on the scourge of racist blacks (who have evidently accosted WC during his time in the military).

[Parker2112]

"both middle of the road independents"

:lol :lol :lol :lol

boutons, what you got on the OP?

[boutons_deux]

All of DC is owned by the financial sector. DC simply cannot stand up to the power (aka $$$) of Wall St, capitalists, corps.

And the joke will be on the tea baggers when/if they send anybody to DC to find their Congressmen's will be purchased, too.

Wall St is so pissed at this silly, weak regulation (the legislation isn't even written into rules, yet. That will takes many years. SEC took 14 years to write the rules against predatory lenders after Congress passed legislation in 1994) that Wall St is already heavily funding/preferring the Repugs in the mid-term campaigns, while the window is still open for Wall St to influence the legislation's rule writing.

[Parker2112]

vote mickey mouse.

[Parker2112]

oh shit Mickey is a commie!

http://english.cntv.cn/program/bizasia/20100715/101006.shtml

[CosmicCowboy]

Really? Middle of the road?

Tell me where you stand on the following:

Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists
Warrantless wiretapping
No-knock raids
Gov'ts claiming "state secrets" privileges
Death tax
Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Israel's blockades
Gay marriage
Illegal immigrant amnesty

I'm pretty sure you'll come down on the side of the right-wing on nearly every one of those categories. In fact, if you want, list which categories you do break from conservative/Republicans and side with liberals/Democrats instead. I'd be interested to hear them.

Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists

no...get the info you want then take them out back and shoot them

Warrantless wiretapping

I'm OK with that. I've got nothing to hide

No-knock raids

clearly a fact that total surprise usually leads to safer, lower casualty (on both sides) arrests


Gov'ts claiming "state secrets" privileges

always have, always will

Death tax

against...taxes have already been paid on that income once

Iraq War

GTFO

Afghanistan War

GTFO

Israel's blockades

Israel has a right to defend itself. If Mexico was launching 1000's of rockets a year into the US would blow them the fuck away instead of just putting an embargo on them

Gay marriage

civil unions fine with me. Shouldn't be able to adopt and employees shouldn't be forced to cover partners under spousal insurance/benefits. Shouldn't be able to receive SS partner death benefits

Illegal immigrant amnesty

GREATLY expanded greencard program plus work tax. No citizenship. Repeal anchor baby amendment.

There ya go.

[Wild Cobra]

Really? Middle of the road?

Tell me where you stand on the following:

Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists
Warrantless wiretapping
No-knock raids
Gov'ts claiming "state secrets" privileges
Death tax
Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Israel's blockades
Gay marriage
Illegal immigrant amnesty

I'm pretty sure you'll come down on the side of the right-wing on nearly every one of those categories. In fact, if you want, list which categories you do break from conservative/Republicans and side with liberals/Democrats instead. I'd be interested to hear them.
[I]n the broad strokes you paint them in, some definitely sound bad.
I will play your game though. Just remember, I don't figure in the lies said about such items. You are correct however, I do come on the same side as the right.

1) Death tax

Against

2) Iraq War

For

3) Afghanistan War

For

4) Israel's blockades

They are a sovereign nation. Because I understand why they do what they do, I support them.

5) Gay marriage

Against.

a) I wish government never got involved with marriage, call them all civil unions.

b) I see marriage as a church organized acceptance.

c) A and B together means I see government control of an aspect of an establish religion, illegal.

d) If the government wishes to control rights and privileges for a couple, it cannot be what is an established church function. Any legal coupling must be called something else.

I'm happy with a domestic union being the legal term, for any couple. Homosexual or heterosexual.

6) Illegal immigrant amnesty

Amnesty is a good concept for understandable crimes. Our neighbors wanting a better life is an understandable crime. Most of them, I would trade for five useless Americans if I could. Tjhat's why in some posts I said if the left wants to support illegal immigration, we trade mexico. One for one. We will given them one of the tax payer money sponge suckers for one illegal. Problem is, that idea will never take shape.

I will always be a resounding NO, until we actually have border security. Then, and only then, will I be willing to address amnesty. To just talk about the possibility, makes more illegals come in than normally would, so they can make the deadline for amnesty.

I hope I made the last two points more clear than I have in the past. I thing we debated the other issues to death, except maybe the death tax.

[admiralsnackbar]

You don't have rub our noses in it; we're accustomed to wallowing.

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

dont forget how they stand on the scourge of racist blacks (who have evidently accosted WC during his time in the military).
Nice try mouse.

[Parker2112]

Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists

no...get the info you want then take them out back and shoot them

Warrantless wiretapping

I'm OK with that. I've got nothing to hide

No-knock raids

clearly a fact that total surprise usually leads to safer, lower casualty (on both sides) arrests.

And you claim to support upholding the constitution? You claim to give a fuck about history? the forefathers?

dude your credibility is shit. your an AUTHORITARIAN at its worst. maybe you should move to a place where this shit is the norm...like North Korea....with that fucking communist mouse too.

[Parker2112]

Nice try mouse.

why arent you condemning your authoritarian buddy there?


you want hands off corps and hands all over citizens, is that it? sounds like communist shit if I ever heard it

fuckin repugs...

[CosmicCowboy]

MY credibility is shit?

:lmao

[Parker2112]

youre all for a military state. John Wayne my ass. dude your a fascist commie at heart

[Wild Cobra]

why arent you condemning your authoritarian buddy there?


you want hands off corps and hands all over citizens, is that it? sounds like communist shit if I ever heard it

fuckin repugs...
You are starting to act and sound like mouse (http://spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3301). Sorry, my mistake. thought maybe you were another of his alias'.

[Wild Cobra]

youre all for a military state. John Wayne my ass. dude your a fascist commie at heart
You are so wrong. Having a strong military and wanting a military state ate not the same.

[Parker2112]

answer the question WC.

you want hands off corps and hands all over citizens rights?

[Wild Cobra]

answer the question WC.

you want hands off corps and hands all over citizens rights?
Wow...

How many times must you have missed the idea I believe some regulations are necessary.

[Parker2112]

You are so wrong. Having a strong military and wanting a military state ate not the same.

miitary state is a domestic concept. The shit CC is advocating doesnt have a damn thing to do with the military abroad. it has everything to do with citizens rights here at home, AND THAT CONSTITUTION YOU CLAIM TO LOVE SO MUCH.

[CosmicCowboy]

youre all for a military state. John Wayne my ass. dude your a fascist commie at heart

:lol @ you getting your panties in a wad. Are you REALLY Mouse?

Nope. I'm not for a military state. A terrorist is a fucking terrorist. They shouldn't get Geneva Convention rights. I'm serious as cancer. Get the information you want out of them and then shoot them like a rabid dog.

As for the wiretapping, I'm for it as long as it is in the interest of National Security. Like I said, I've got nothing to hide and no other law abiding citizen does either. We didn't pick this war but Radical Islam has declared war on US. We need to use every means possible to protect ourselves.

[Parker2112]

Wow...

How many times must you have missed the idea I believe some regulations are necessary.

REGULATIONS? How bout infringement of constitutional rights? And your OK with that all of a sudden WITHOUT A CONST AMENDMENT?

[Parker2112]

:lol @ you getting your panties in a wad. Are you REALLY Mouse?

Nope. I'm not for a military state. A terrorist is a fucking terrorist. They shouldn't get Geneva Convention rights. I'm serious as cancer. Get the information you want out of them and then shoot them like a rabid dog.

As for the wiretapping, I'm for it as long as it is in the interest of National Security. Like I said, I've got nothing to hide and no other law abiding citizen does either. We didn't pick this war but Radical Islam has declared war on US. We need to use every means possible to protect ourselves.

you dont know who is a fucking terrorist till the shit gets tried. in a US COURT OF LAW. WITH CONST PROTECTIONS AFFORDED. If you dont want them, move to Iran, you ignorant repug.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol @ you getting your panties in a wad. Are you REALLY Mouse?

He is just a slightly more understandable version of mouse, isn't he?

[Parker2112]

:lol @ you getting your panties in a wad. Are you REALLY Mouse?

Nope. I'm not for a military state. A terrorist is a fucking terrorist. They shouldn't get Geneva Convention rights. I'm serious as cancer. Get the information you want out of them and then shoot them like a rabid dog.

As for the wiretapping, I'm for it as long as it is in the interest of National Security. Like I said, I've got nothing to hide and no other law abiding citizen does either. We didn't pick this war but Radical Islam has declared war on US. We need to use every means possible to protect ourselves.

protect ourselves from who? if you have no warrant, no probable cause, you dont have any reason to require protection. what a simple repug

[Parker2112]

He is just a slightly more understandable version of mouse, isn't he?

WC, you are a straight hypocrite.

[Wild Cobra]

miitary state is a domestic concept. The shit CC is advocating doesnt have a damn thing to do with the military abroad. it has everything to do with citizens rights here at home, AND THAT CONSTITUTION YOU CLAIM TO LOVE SO MUCH.
I must have missed that posting. Which one is it please. I have never taken any of his posts to mean that, unless you consider any law enforcement like the military.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, you are a straight hypocrite.
Huh?

I'm only comparing you to another poster.

Have you read anything that mouse posts by chance?

You two probably agree allot.

[CosmicCowboy]

protect ourselves from who? if you have no warrant, no probable cause, you dont have any reason to require protection. what a simple repug

If I'm a "simple Repug" what label do you give yourself?

[CosmicCowboy]

you dont know who is a fucking terrorist till the shit gets tried. in a US COURT OF LAW. WITH CONST PROTECTIONS AFFORDED. If you dont want them, move to Iran, you ignorant repug.

Sure I know what a terrorist is. A lot of those guys in Guantanamo were captured on the field of battle shooting at our guys. They don't need a fucking trial.

[Parker2112]

Sure I know what a terrorist is. A lot of those guys in Guantanamo were captured on the field of battle shooting at our guys. They don't need a fucking trial.

your talking about people here at home, gunnie...its not so cut and dried.

battlfield logic doesnt work when someone can be rounded up, interrogated, "taken out back and shot" based on someone's false charges.

do you understand that the constitution is meant to keep the gov from directing false charges, such as "terrorist," against its dissenters like they did in jolly old england?

you dont even know what the fuck your fighting for. wake the fuck up CC.

[Wild Cobra]

#65...

Another failed post.

[Parker2112]

how can you two expect any cred, when you both selectively thump on the constitution like you do?

[Parker2112]

#65...

Another failed post.

dude, you have already shown me you dont know shit about the constitution, and whats more you only support it when its supports you.

Instead of blaming Obama, blame people who would kill our const rights...people like yourself.

[CosmicCowboy]

your talking about people here at home, gunnie...its not so cut and dried.

battlfield logic doesnt work when someone can be rounded up, interrogated, "taken out back and shot" based on someone's false charges.

do you understand that the constitution is meant to keep the gov from directing false charges, such as "terrorist," against its dissenters like they did in jolly old england?

you dont even know what the fuck your fighting for. wake the fuck up CC.

So can we shoot the guantanamo terrorists?

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, I've been "no knock" raided by the ATF on a gun charge (long story) and STILL support their right to do it.

[Parker2112]

So can we shoot the guantanamo terrorists?

when do you need to tap guantanamo prisoners phones? you were talking about the rights of US citizens, not detained terrorists. you were taking about kicking in the doors of detainees? I dont fucking think so.

you cant even tell the difference between the two?

[Parker2112]

BTW, I've been "no knock" raided by the ATF on a gun charge (long story) and STILL support their right to do it.

then your a sheep. and a commie, who would turn all your rights over to the government. and the constitution says your fucking wrong.

[Parker2112]

you cant support your gov's right to violate the constitution...it doesnt work like that gunnie.

[CosmicCowboy]

when do you need to tap guantanamo prisoners phones? you were talking about the rights of US citizens, not detained terrorists. you were taking about kicking in the doors of detainees? I dont fucking think so.

you cant even tell the difference between the two?

Where did I specify US Citizens? I was talking about the detained terrorists in Guantanamo.

[CosmicCowboy]

then your a sheep. and a commie, who would turn all your rights over to the government. and the constitution says your fucking wrong.

Make up your mind. I thought I was a "Simple Repug".

[Parker2112]

Where did I specify US Citizens? I was talking about the detained terrorists in Guantanamo.

detainees have phones and doors to kick in?

get your story straight. either way, you dont know why you serve. I thought you military boys were supposed to be superior to us civilians?

[Wild Cobra]

you cant support your gov's right to violate the constitution...it doesnt work like that gunnie.
I don't see it that way. The fourth amendment protects from "UNREASONABLE" searches and seizures. It is not worded to mean a warrant is required. A warrant is a judicial order, and often used to protect the law enforcement officer. In most crimes, a warrant is now required, but by law. Not constitution.

Maybe you should read the constitution again.

[CosmicCowboy]

you cant support your gov's right to violate the constitution...it doesnt work like that gunnie.

What difference does "no knock" make? They still have to prove probable cause and get a warrant from a judge before executing the raid. I don't see that it's such a big deal that they "knock" first. Should they also say "pretty please" and "thank you"?

[Parker2112]

I don't see it that way. The fourth amendment protects from "UNREASONABLY" searches and seizures. It is not worded to mean a warrant is required. A warrant is a judicial order, and often used to protect the law enforcement officer. In most crimes, a warrant is now required, but by law. Not constitution.

Maybe you should read the constitution again.

Read the text:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

pretty clear that unreasonable is any instance where a Warrant is not issued. Either your unreasonable or you have a warrant. read the text.

[CosmicCowboy]

detainees have phones and doors to kick in?

get your story straight. either way, you dont know why you serve. I thought you military boys were supposed to be superior to us civilians?

What makes you think I'm in the military? Never was. I got a full boat offer from the Air Force Academy but declined it because I didn't want to commit for 6 years.

[Parker2112]

the only justification is if you expand the powers of the executive branch, beyond thier original scope, to allow warrantless search. WHICH YOU HYPOCRITES ARE AGAINST WITHOUT AMENDMENT.

What a crop of winners.

[Parker2112]

What makes you think I'm in the military? Never was. I got a full boat offer from the Air Force Academy but declined it because I didn't want to commit for 6 years.

then your just a sheep.

[CosmicCowboy]

the only justification is if you expand the powers of the executive branch, beyond thier original scope, to allow warrantless search. WHICH YOU HYPOCRITES ARE AGAINST WITHOUT AMENDMENT.

What a crop of winners.

Have you had your blood pressure checked lately? You seem quite excitable and easily baited..:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Read the text:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

pretty clear that unreasonable is any instance where a Warrant is not issued. Either your unreasonable or you have a warrant. read the text.
Have you ever read the legal definition of a warrant? And the meaning of a warrant in the 19th century?

I suggest you stop assuming you know what you think you know.

[Parker2112]

In 1975, the Church Committee (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Church_Committee), a United States Senate (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States_Senate) select committee (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Select_or_special_committee_(United_States)) chaired by Frank Church (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Frank_Church) of Idaho (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Idaho), a Democrat (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)), investigated Cold War (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Cold_War) intelligence-gathering by the federal government (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States_federal_government), including warrantless surveillance.[2] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-1) The committee report found the "Americans who violated no criminal law and represented no genuine threat to the 'national security (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/National_security)' have been targeted, regardless of the stated predicate. In many cases, the implementation of wiretaps (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Telephone_tapping) and bugs (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Covert_listening_device) has also been fraught with procedural violations, even when the required procedures were meager, thus compounding the abuse. The inherently intrusive nature of electronic surveillance, moreover, has enabled the Government to generate vast amounts of information - unrelated to any legitimate governmental interest - about the personal and political lives of American citizens."[3] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-2)
The "potential criminal liability of the National Security Agency (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/National_Security_Agency) and the Central Intelligence Agency (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) for operations such as SHAMROCK (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Project_Shamrock) (interception of all international cable traffic from 1945 to 1975) and MINARET (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Project_MINARET) (use of watchlists of U.S. dissidents and potential civil disturbers to provide intercept information to law enforcement agencies from 1969 to 1973)" helped persuade president Gerald Ford (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Gerald_Ford) in 1976 to seek surveillance legislation, which was ultimately enacted as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act) in 1978.[4] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-autogenerated2-3)
Abuses of power by the federal government led to reform legislation in the 1970s.[4] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-autogenerated2-3) Advancing technology began to present questions not directly addressed by the legislation as early as 1985.[5] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-autogenerated1-4)
In its 1985 report "Electronic Surveillance and Civil Liberties," the nonpartisan Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment) suggested legislation be considered for a surveillance oversight board.[6] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-5) Congress disbanded this agency in 1995.[5] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-autogenerated1-4)


So all the way to 1978, the gov could incur CRIMINAL LIABILITY for warrantless search and seizure in violation of the constitution.

Bill Clinton's admin made the first move toward an expanded executive power to include warrantless searches. Just goes to show you party lines mean shit. continued in GWB admin. In Obama Admin.

Bottom line is, your all about a document that you 1) know nothing about, and 2) would destroy based simply on aggressive policies of the republican party (and other parties as well, but that escapes you completely) to directly contradict your own self professed beliefs in the founding principles of this country, up to and including our constitution.

What a hypocritical dick. you two repub joy boys need to take a long strong look in the mirror and realize that the inconsistancies in your position are not limited to you two individually, but stretch to your party of allegiance as well, and that is WHY NONE OF YOU MOFOS CAN BE TRUSTED BEYOND THAT TRUST WE THE PEOPLE COULD PUT IN KIM JONG IL.

[CosmicCowboy]

So all the way to 1978, the gov could incur CRIMINAL LIABILITY for warrantless search and seizure in violation of the constitution.

Bill Clinton's admin made the first move toward an expanded executive power to include warrantless searches. Just goes to show you party lines mean shit. continued in GWB admin. In Obama Admin.

Bottom line is, your all about a document that you 1) know nothing about, and 2) would destroy based simply on aggressive policies of the republican party (and other parties as well, but that escapes you completely) to directly contradict your own self professed beliefs in the founding principles of this country, up to and including our constitution.

What a hypocritical dick. you two repub joy boys need to take a long strong look in the mirror and realize that the inconsistancies in your position are not limited to you two individually, but stretch to your party of allegiance as well, and that is WHY NONE OF YOU MOFOS CAN BE TRUSTED BEYOND THAT TRUST WE THE PEOPLE COULD PUT IN KIM JONG IL.

:lmao

Dude, you crack me up!

[Parker2112]

http://fdrnepal.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/north-korean-leader-kim-jong-il.jpg

[Parker2112]

:lmao

Dude, you crack me up!

Of course I do. alot of things are funny when you have a fourth grader's IQ. You should try making farting noises with your mouth on your arm...I bet that shit will keep you laughing for hours...

[Parker2112]

Next time I log on a thread and you two repub twins see me on here, I want you to offer me your seats and a cold beverage. After today, I own you both.:king

[Wild Cobra]

Next time I log on a board and you two repub twins see me on here, I want you to offer me your seats and a cold beverage. After today, I own you both.:king

Only in your dreams.

[Parker2112]

adios muchachas re-pooh-bli-cahn.

[CosmicCowboy]

Only in your dreams.

:lol

No shit.

I gotta admit he's passionate. Fucking stupid and easy as hell to bait, but he's damn passionate about it! :lol

[Wild Cobra]

adios muchachas re-pooh-bli-cahn.
Good night. Hope you mommy tucks you in well.

Think you can lose the passifier?

[LnGrrrR]

Indefinite detention of suspected terrorists

no...get the info you want then take them out back and shoot them

You realize that we've released many detainees because they were actually innocent? So you're saying you're ok with shooting innocents without a trial?


Warrantless wiretapping

I'm OK with that. I've got nothing to hide

That's not really the point, is it? The whole "If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry" is as dumb an argument as the whole, "You make enough money to live, we can tax the rest" argument that some Dems make.


No-knock raids

clearly a fact that total surprise usually leads to safer, lower casualty (on both sides) arrests

Clearly? I haven't seen that data anywhere. I have heard of innocents who've been assaulted in their homes though.



Gov'ts claiming "state secrets" privileges

always have, always will

I'm guessing you're not familiar with this, but up until recently, the "state secrets" clause was only used to disallow certain EVIDENCE. Nowadays, it's being used to throw out an entire court case.

Tell me, you're for government transparency, right? So why do you agree that the government should just be able to shout "State secrets" and throw out a case?


Death tax

against...taxes have already been paid on that income once

No arguments there.

[
Iraq War

GTFO

Afghanistan War

GTFO

Ok.


Israel's blockades

Israel has a right to defend itself. If Mexico was launching 1000's of rockets a year into the US would blow them the fuck away instead of just putting an embargo on them

Ok.


Gay marriage

civil unions fine with me. Shouldn't be able to adopt and employees shouldn't be forced to cover partners under spousal insurance/benefits. Shouldn't be able to receive SS partner death benefits

Disagree for various reasons (ie. if I were in a foster home, I'd probably rather go to a home with two gay people than be stuck in the foster home. And I'm rather confident that children could choose not to go to a gay home... anyways, moving on.


Illegal immigrant amnesty

GREATLY expanded greencard program plus work tax. No citizenship. Repeal anchor baby amendment.

So, of the above issues, you agree with the right-wing on everything but the Iraq/Afghanistan War. Not quite the mark of a "middle of the road independent".

[LnGrrrR]

I hope I made the last two points more clear than I have in the past. I thing we debated the other issues to death, except maybe the death tax.

WC, I think you know you're on the right side of the aisle moreso than an independent... you're just more right than many of the "right-wing" politicians because those politicians with an R by their name don't live up to their fiscal bonafides. And I haven't debated the death tax with you because I agree with you on that subject :D lol

[LnGrrrR]

Sure I know what a terrorist is. A lot of those guys in Guantanamo were captured on the field of battle shooting at our guys. They don't need a fucking trial.

If they were captured while shooting at our guys, then it should be an open and shut case, should it not? Why not put them on trial?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't see it that way. The fourth amendment protects from "UNREASONABLE" searches and seizures. It is not worded to mean a warrant is required. A warrant is a judicial order, and often used to protect the law enforcement officer. In most crimes, a warrant is now required, but by law. Not constitution.

Maybe you should read the constitution again.

You're twisting the use of the word "unreasonable" here WC, which is surprising as you're usually a stickler for using the words as they're meant to be.

Here, unreasonable does not mean "not much of a hassle". It means they must have a reason to search you. It can't be on a whim. The problem with warrantless wiretapping is that they've been running a wide net, and intercepting calls/info that isn't just terrorist-related, but also covers many innocent communications.

The usefulness of the program is dubious, as it provides almost too much info to understaffed police/federal forces looking for the bad guys. We'll never know though because the govt won't spill those details.

If you try to justify it as "There's a reason, they're protecting us from terrorists", well I guess that police officers should just be able to stop anyone they care to and pull off a strip search, all in the name of fighting terrorism. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

What difference does "no knock" make? They still have to prove probable cause and get a warrant from a judge before executing the raid. I don't see that it's such a big deal that they "knock" first. Should they also say "pretty please" and "thank you"?

The "knock" is to let occupants aware that the police are about to come in, so they don't think a criminal is busting down their door.

It also prevents the police from looking like idiots when they get an address wrong, so they don't break down the door, shoot some people, and apologize afterwards for being mistaken.

And what's so wrong about cops being polite? *shrug*

[LnGrrrR]

Have you ever read the legal definition of a warrant? And the meaning of a warrant in the 19th century?

I suggest you stop assuming you know what you think you know.

Would you argue that probable cause is not needed for a search?

[CosmicCowboy]

The "knock" is to let occupants aware that the police are about to come in, so they don't think a criminal is busting down their door.

It also prevents the police from looking like idiots when they get an address wrong, so they don't break down the door, shoot some people, and apologize afterwards for being mistaken.

And what's so wrong about cops being polite? *shrug*

The knock also allows bad guys time to grab their guns and shoot back, and in the hypothetical case of suicidal terrorists, blow the house up.

I'm not sure why "knocking" is such a big deal to you. They can't go in without probable cause and a search warrant signed by a judge.

[LnGrrrR]

The knock also allows bad guys time to grab their guns and shoot back, and in the hypothetical case of suicidal terrorists, blow the house up.

I'm not sure why "knocking" is such a big deal to you. They can't go in without probable cause and a search warrant signed by a judge.

Yes, it does allow bad guys to grab their guns. Of course, if it's likely the people will be packing heat, they could just watch the house and wait until the people leave, then bust down the door after the knock goes unanswered.

If you don't see why "knocking" is such a big deal to me, I don't see why "not knocking" is such a big deal to you. Knocking helps ensure that the cops have the correct house.

I would personally rather let some drugs get flushed, than have an innocent's home busted into and said innocent shot.

[Winehole23]

youre all for a military state. John Wayne my ass. dude your a fascist commie at heartI can see you're getting the hang of it. You'll fit right in.

[Winehole23]

(wino seel of approvl:sleep)

[Spurminator]

Remember how people used to say "sheeple"? That was funny.

[Winehole23]

People still say it sometimes. boutons is the prime offender around here. WC resorts to it occasionally.

[Winehole23]

Aren't Alex Jones and Glenn Beck confirmed sheeple users as well?

[boutons_deux]

sheeple, rabble, bubbas, ignorant fucks, Repugs, tea baggers, patriots, BecKKKistas fucktards, Oath Keepers

The question is not the partisan sheeple question of

"Who can honestly believe that Obama/ the democratic party are running a damn thing?"

but rather,

"Who still believes the govt is running any damn thing?"

The govt works for Wall St, corps, capitalists who really run the USA and the planet.

The disenfranchisement of citizen voters is complete, was a long time ago. No matter who gets elected, they end up corrupted by their Wall st/capitalist/corp owners who are relentless, focused, undeniable in buying off all of them.

There's no hope that DC will ever be changed. Tea bagging freshman Scott Brown is as compromised as as any veteran Congressional fraudster. Rand Paul is already being called out for "joining" the Repug establishment.

Magic Negro was financed by people, but even he betrays nearly all of his campaign promises. The war "MIC business" going full blast, the bank bailout and nominal financial regulation vs a way too small stimulus for real persons.

Watch Wall St finance the Repug mid-terms to overturn the Dem majority, in retaliation for even daring to think of regulating Wall St with this limp-wristed finance law which allows Wall St to keep fisting the planet.

The candidate who spends the most money wins 90% of the time.

[king andoks]

1. Thank you for not helping BP with the seal cap...

2. Thank you for giving people with no jobs and making it a job to get more tax money every time you have a baby a year!!
-Those kinds of parents will just further the cesspool of passing the generation the principles of not having a job and getting free hand outs by not working hard.

3. I see from that 20 nation meeting that Europe wants to start changing the ways they do things by tax breaking people because what they are doing now isn't working, and that is what US is headed for, thank you Obama.
- I loathe the day when Bush's tax break expires next year, which becomes a 5% tax on your income and the marriage tax starts, I smell a 10% tax increase on our income heading our way next year...

4. How come people who petition to become American citizens, it takes 10 - 25 years, but illegals can come here for free, thank you Obama...
- My grandma who is from the Philippines wants to become an American citizen, but they denied knowing that her husband was in the US Navy back in the day and he served in the Korean War, another thanks Obama, I see you disrespect our armed forces.
- Furthermore I love when you bow to other countries, showing that our country is weak, awesome job, just splendid.

5. I can't wait for the day when health care professions become another form of slave labor, where our doctors, therapists, surgeons, nurses, etc... become unhappy with their job, BIG THANKS!!!

6. Don't worry our kids will have a nice 70% bracket when they grow up, they would love to work for free...

7. One last thing, at this rate with all the illegal Mexicans coming in 4x faster than blacks and whites we will have a new president named Chavez, and guess what, will become another democrat because he is out for the people who don't have jobs...
-Oh yeah I forgot, since every other nation is going to start tax breaks all the jobs will move off shore since they will be taxed less, so our unofficial of 30% unemployed will become 60%...
- If you tax less, more companies will have more money to hire more people and more people won't be saving all the time, thus spending more, giving back to the economy...

[George Gervin's Afro]

1. Thank you for not helping BP with the seal cap...

2. Thank you for giving people with no jobs and making it a job to get more tax money every time you have a baby a year!!
-Those kinds of parents will just further the cesspool of passing the generation the principles of not having a job and getting free hand outs by not working hard.

3. I see from that 20 nation meeting that Europe wants to start changing the ways they do things by tax breaking people because what they are doing now isn't working, and that is what US is headed for, thank you Obama.
- I loathe the day when Bush's tax break expires next year, which becomes a 5% tax on your income and the marriage tax starts, I smell a 10% tax increase on our income heading our way next year...

4. How come people who petition to become American citizens, it takes 10 - 25 years, but illegals can come here for free, thank you Obama...
- My grandma who is from the Philippines wants to become an American citizen, but they denied knowing that her husband was in the US Navy back in the day and he served in the Korean War, another thanks Obama, I see you disrespect our armed forces.
- Furthermore I love when you bow to other countries, showing that our country is weak, awesome job, just splendid.

5. I can't wait for the day when health care professions become another form of slave labor, where our doctors, therapists, surgeons, nurses, etc... become unhappy with their job, BIG THANKS!!!

6. Don't worry our kids will have a nice 70% bracket when they grow up, they would love to work for free...

7. One last thing, at this rate with all the illegal Mexicans coming in 4x faster than blacks and whites we will have a new president named Chavez, and guess what, will become another democrat because he is out for the people who don't have jobs...
-Oh yeah I forgot, since every other nation is going to start tax breaks all the jobs will move off shore since they will be taxed less, so our unofficial of 30% unemployed will become 60%...
- If you tax less, more companies will have more money to hire more people and more people won't be saving all the time, thus spending more, giving back to the economy...

:lmao

You should fit in nicely with the resident dead enders..:lmao


I can't let this pass, what specifically could Obama have done to expedite the capping of the well?

[admiralsnackbar]

I preferred the claim that taxation would cause corps to send jobs overseas. Corps sent work to China, India, etc. loooooong before Obama was even a Senator (in fact, since NAFTA -- Clinton's most right-wing policy-- went into effect), even as they were being subsidized by tax dollars.

Maybe Obama should raise taxes to bolster education.

[CosmicCowboy]

I preferred the claim that taxation would cause corps to send jobs overseas. Corps sent work to China, India, etc. loooooong before Obama was even a Senator (in fact, since NAFTA -- Clinton's most right-wing policy-- went into effect), even as they were being subsidized by tax dollars.

Maybe Obama should raise taxes to bolster education.

More money spent does not equal more education. You have to have students that want to learn.

[admiralsnackbar]

More money spent does not equal more education. You have to have students that want to learn.

It was a joke, but if you wanna go there, I think it's hard to argue with the equation that more schools + better certification regulations = fewer students per class = better education for all. I'm not an advocate of throwing money at problems hoping voodoo will fix them, but some things aren't hard to understand.

[king andoks]

It was a joke, but if you wanna go there, I think it's hard to argue with the equation that more schools + better certification regulations = fewer students per class = better education for all. I'm not an advocate of throwing money at problems hoping voodoo will fix them, but some things aren't hard to understand.

Furthermore, it's not a matter of quality of teachers because if you aren't good at what you do, you will get fired, no questions asked...

[admiralsnackbar]

Furthermore, it's not a matter of quality of teachers because if you aren't good at what you do, you will get fired, no questions asked...

If only it worked that way. That's why I stipulated tougher certification requirements. As it is now, teachers' performance is determined by how well they coach their kids to pass a standardized test, not how well they teach them the curriculum. Ask any teacher, good or bad, how they feel about the No Child Left Behind policies. Shit didn't work.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If only it worked that way. That's why I stipulated tougher certification requirements. As it is now, teachers' performance is determined by how well they coach their kids to pass a standardized test, not how well they teach them the curriculum. Ask any teacher, good or bad, how they feel about the No Child Left Behind policies. Shit didn't work.

Not one teacher I know likes the tests. Not because they don't want accountability, rather all they do is teach the kids to pass THIS test.

Improvement in education starts with the parents.

[George Gervin's Afro]

More money spent does not equal more education. You have to have students that want to learn.

You also need to have the resources to provide the neediest school districts with up to date facilties and supplies. This makes a big difference in a child's abiltiy to learn.

[CosmicCowboy]

You also need to have the resources to provide the neediest school districts with up to date facilties and supplies. This makes a big difference in a child's abiltiy to learn.

What school doesn't have up to date facilities and supplies? They are all building monuments. 90 million for a high school? Give me a fucking break...SAISD is just as bad as NISD or NEISD.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What school doesn't have up to date facilities and supplies? They are all building monuments. 90 million for a high school? Give me a fucking break...SAISD is just as bad as NISD or NEISD.

you're joking right?

[CosmicCowboy]

you're joking right?

No I'm not. Answer the question. What school building in San Antonio is not adequate?

[CosmicCowboy]

Lady Bird Johnson High School cost 92 fucking million dollars. Thats $210 a square foot and $32,000 per student. That's fucking obscene.

[admiralsnackbar]

Lady Bird Johnson High School cost 92 fucking million dollars. Thats $210 a square foot and $32,000 per student. That's fucking obscene.

It's cheaper than sending uneducated, unskilled kids into the work force. You ever seen what a prison costs?

And considering more than one class of kids is gonna use the facility, the per student cost is a little misleading, isn't it?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's cheaper than sending uneducated, unskilled kids into the work force. You ever seen what a prison costs?

Apparently you are one of them. Spending obscene amounts of money on architectural monuments to school boards egos does not = smarter better prepared students.

[admiralsnackbar]

Apparently you are one of them. Spending obscene amounts of money on architectural monuments to school boards egos does not = smarter better prepared students.
I'm not defending architectural monuments, I'm defending building schools. Could they be built more cheaply? I don't doubt it, but I wouldn't pretend to know about it. Is there some reason I should believe you know about the appropriate price of building schools?

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not defending architectural monuments, I'm defending building schools. Could they be built more cheaply? I don't doubt it, but I wouldn't pretend to know about it. Is there some reason I should believe you know about the appropriate price of building schools?

Well, my degree was a hybrid of Architecture and Civil Engineering but you don't have to study it in college to recognize the waste. Hell yes they could build schools at 1/3 the price that would do the same job.

[admiralsnackbar]

Well, my degree was a hybrid of Architecture and Civil Engineering but you don't have to study it in college to recognize the waste. Hell yes they could build schools at 1/3 the price that would do the same job.

Then join a school board.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then join a school board.

I could say the same to you since you feel we aren't spending ENOUGH on students. We are already spending $5000 to $8000 per student per year.

The kids that want to learn are being educated. The problem is that we have a high percentage of school age scum that have no desire to be educated.

[Winehole23]

Service is honorable, but bitching is free.

[Winehole23]

@ admiralsnackbar:

If federal benchmarks based on standardized testing hinder the teaching of curriculum, how will pouring more money into just such a system improve its performance?

[Winehole23]

The kids that want to learn are being educated.Self-education is the kernel. You gotta have the ganas. Knowledge does not pass from teacher to student osmotically.


The problem is that we have a high percentage of school age scum that have no desire to be educated.True, but we keep em cooped up way too long, and not providing enough vo-tech is certainly a mistake. Secondary level education ought to be done by age 12 or so. Leave em time to apprentice to trades if college is too far a reach. College isn't for everyone, certainly not at age 18.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No I'm not. Answer the question. What school building in San Antonio is not adequate?

One example simpleton is computer labs... I can give you others if you'd like.

[admiralsnackbar]

I could say the same to you since you feel we aren't spending ENOUGH on students. We are already spending $5000 to $8000 per student per year.

The kids that want to learn are being educated. The problem is that we have a high percentage of school age scum that have no desire to be educated.

And you'd be right to turn it on me. Unfortunately, the change I'd like to see would have to come from a higher place than a state or district budget. I understand we have different ideas about federal funding allocations, and what we spend on kids, but my position is that the best thing a country can do invest in is it's kids.

Better education costs more on the face of things, but when you factor in lost tax revenue due to unemployment or unskilled employment, and the costs of law enforcement and incarceration, you realize you get off cheap. The more kids with good educations you put into the economy, the higher the likelihood they will create businesses that can compete globally and raise the GDP and currency value, and, consequently, make education cheaper.

I also don't doubt there are kids who will never develop an interest in education because they don't give a fuck, but smaller classes make it easier for them to get guidance, either because they get none at home, or because the system (at its present scale) often doesn't know how to plug these kids into the economy. Academically dumb kids can still be taught trades that will make them more money than McDonalds or burglary.

I'm not saying you can help people that don't want to be helped, but its cheaper to make the effort in the long run than it is to consolidate schools and guarantee that a solid percentage of students will become criminals or poverty-liners. YMMV.

[CosmicCowboy]

Self-education is the kernel. You gotta have the ganas. Knowledge does not pass from teacher to student osmotically.

True, but we keep em cooped up way too long, and not providing enough vo-tech is certainly a mistake. Secondary level education ought to be done by age 12 or so. Leave em time to apprentice to trades if college is too far a reach. College isn't for everyone, certainly not at age 18.

We totally agree on both points. By the 8th grade they should have acceptable math, english, and history/civics basics. Make the split there...let the parents/kids choose the track and do aptitude testing and break the vocational off into it's own dedicated campus. Vocational training needs to be comprehensive and not just a place to park them till they "graduate".

[admiralsnackbar]

@ admiralsnackbar:

If federal benchmarks based on standardized testing hinder the teaching of curriculum, how will pouring more money into just such a system improve its performance?

Because you aren't pouring more money into the Teachers Union to placate short-timers, you're investing in facilities and new teachers. Half the problem in public schools is that class sizes are too large for people that don't have the ganas to learn.

Teaching isn't rocket science, it's about making kids accountable for their performance. You can't make kids feel the need to meet expectations in a big-ass classroom.

[admiralsnackbar]

Self-education is the kernel. You gotta have the ganas. Knowledge does not pass from teacher to student osmotically.

True, but we keep em cooped up way too long, and not providing enough vo-tech is certainly a mistake. Secondary level education ought to be done by age 12 or so. Leave em time to apprentice to trades if college is too far a reach. College isn't for everyone, certainly not at age 18.

Agreed.

[CosmicCowboy]

Because you aren't pouring more money into the Teachers Union to placate short-timers, you're investing in facilities and new teachers. Half the problem in public schools is that class sizes are too large for people that don't have the ganas to learn.

Teaching isn't rocket science, it's about making kids accountable for their performance. You can't make kids feel the need to meet expectations in a big-ass classroom.

The whole problem IMHO is that the school model is out-dated and broken and is based on perpetuating teacher/administration paychecks and not on providing a better education.

[admiralsnackbar]

The whole problem IMHO is that the school model is out-dated and broken and is based on perpetuating teacher/administration paychecks and not on providing a better education.

You'll have no argument from me on this, man.

[Wild Cobra]

You're twisting the use of the word "unreasonable" here WC, which is surprising as you're usually a stickler for using the words as they're meant to be.

Here, unreasonable does not mean "not much of a hassle". It means they must have a reason to search you. It can't be on a whim.
We agree.

The problem with warrantless wiretapping is that they've been running a wide net, and intercepting calls/info that isn't just terrorist-related, but also covers many innocent communications.

Thing is, what you speak of has been happening since the 50's. It wasn't complained about until Bush (43) came into office.


The usefulness of the program is dubious, as it provides almost too much info to understaffed police/federal forces looking for the bad guys. We'll never know though because the govt won't spill those details.

That's debatable. Hard to believe they you stay with an ineffective program for 60 years.


If you try to justify it as "There's a reason, they're protecting us from terrorists", well I guess that police officers should just be able to stop anyone they care to and pull off a strip search, all in the name of fighting terrorism. :lol
Not all all. Probable cause is required to target a specific line.

Would you argue that probable cause is not needed for a search?
No, and my posts have never reflected that.

I could say the same to you since you feel we aren't spending ENOUGH on students. We are already spending $5000 to $8000 per student per year.

Is that all it is where you live? It's something like $13,000 now here in Oregon, per student.

Maybe you're just looking at the second set of books. Ask for the "all funds budget" and then divide the number of students into that.

[admiralsnackbar]

Thing is, what you speak of has been happening since the 50's. It wasn't complained about until Bush (43) came into office.


Not quite. It wasn't complained about after 1968 when a law was created demanding search warrants for wire-taps which was essentially rescinded by the Patriot Act. Prior to 1968, there was plenty of fuss made about the issue since JE Hoover was a surveillance-happy transvestite nut.

[Winehole23]

Because you aren't pouring more money into the Teachers Union to placate short-timers, you're investing in facilities and new teachers.Well, that'd be nice.


Half the problem in public schools is that class sizes are too large for people that don't have the ganas to learn. That they are required to be there and that we are required to keep them there, by law, is insane.


Teaching isn't rocket science, it's about making kids accountable for their performance. You can't make kids feel the need to meet expectations in a big-ass classroom.Not so many heads to hide behind would seem to enhance basic accountability. I can buy that.

What would be an optimal ratio, would you guess?

[admiralsnackbar]

Well, that'd be nice.

That they are required to be there and that we are required to keep them there, by law, is insane.

Not so many heads to hide behind would seem to enhance basic accountability. I can buy that.

What would be an optimal ratio, would you guess?

I'd defer to a professional teacher for the answer, but I'd say 20:1 is pushing it.

[CosmicCowboy]

I remember taking an American History class in college from an excellent professor that had 380 people in it. You were expected to know everything in the book (he wrote it) but he didn't lecture from the book and you were responsible for that material too. Like anything else, those that wanted to learn, learned and those that didn't didn't.

[admiralsnackbar]

I remember taking an American History class in college from an excellent professor that had 380 people in it. You were expected to know everything in the book (he wrote it) but he didn't lecture from the book and you were responsible for that material too. Like anything else, those that wanted to learn, learned and those that didn't didn't.

Expecting that sort of self-discipline from people who aren't paying for their school (or earning their scholarships) or may not even be cut out for college seems unrealistic to me. By the time you get to college, it's a foregone conclusion that you've learned how to absorb knowledge and be auto-didactic.

[LnGrrrR]

Thing is, what you speak of has been happening since the 50's. It wasn't complained about until Bush (43) came into office.

Well, I wasn't born until the 80's, so please forgive me for not raising a fuss 30 years before I was born. :)

I see a problem now, I'm commenting. Better late than never, eh?


That's debatable. Hard to believe they you stay with an ineffective program for 60 years.

Did they do it at the level it's being done now? Look up "deep packet inspection"... we have many more tools to monitor now than we did before, which means more data to sift through.


Not all all. Probable cause is required to target a specific line.

Do you think that they actually had probably cause for every person they intercepted communications of?

I'll use wikipedia here, but if you wish, you can check out the links from that page...


The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic

Now tell me WC. You normally don't trust the government, right? Why would you trust them the ability to go through your mail, your message traffic, etc etc?

Shoot, they might one day use the law to track people, say, that were involved with Tea Parties, like they did with these groups...

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/new-documents-show-fbi-targeting-environmental-and-animal-rights-groups-activities


Among the documents released today were more than 100 pages of FBI files on PETA. Multiple documents indicate ongoing surveillance of PETA-related meetings and activities, including a “Vegan Community Project” event at the University of Indiana during which the group distributed vegetarian starter kits to students and faculty, an animal rights conference in Washington, DC that was open to the public, and a planned protest of Cindy Crawford’s decision to become a llama fur spokesperson.

[spursncowboys]

There are groups of people who believe it is more important for kids to develop socializing skills over actually learning. They prefer kids to be promoted with age and not with achieving a set goal. I personally do not agree that kids who don't want to learn shouldn't have to go to school. Under 16 isn't an old enough age to be responsible for their actions (if they will affect them for the rest of their life). Also the higher crime from kids who aren't in school. I think magnet schools and voucher programs did everything CC, WH and admiral are wanting for improvements: smaller classes; less emphasis on teachers and more on the students; and less focus on standardize testing. The only problem is when they start looking at where to cut from budget, the parts not protected by the unions, or communities (no matter how successful) will be the first to go. For instance on the NEISD when I went to school they had Center School, and another on which got shut down not too long ago.