Florida Bill Would Allow Students To Sue Teachers

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Oh, Richard Milhouse. Opened China, was constantly paranoid, and was the original "I have a plan!" candidate. Except for him, it worked.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

pwn3d!!!!!

Nah, not really. I'm familiar with all the things Mike is harping about except for the Kuznick guy, and maybe two of them compare. I don't agree with the views these people espouse, but in context I wouldn't say they're significantly harmful at all. If those people and those examples are the ones that he sees as representative examples of academic evil (and even if you think they're morons, they're not close to representative), then I'm not too concerned with this so-called apocalypse.

The shit they spew is just as bad as somebody saying that creationism is fact.

 

It's anti-intellectual crap --- and academia has no problem with it, provided you are on the "correct" side of the political aisle.

-=Mike

So what are you complaining about Mike? That something is NOT FAIR??? Coming from the guy who says LIFE ISN'T FAIR when it concerns people who want a higher min. wage thats kinda funny. So a bunch of professors at some colleges are libs. So what. They can be that way if they want. So some conservative Prof. is getting heat or might be let go cuz his views don't JIVE with the rest of the school. Big deal! He can, if he is qualified, to get a job somewhere else. Right??? It IS his choice. I heard that guy you were talking about on the radio the other day. Apparently he doesn't like where he works too much. Tough shit. If I had the same complaint about MY JOB I would be expected to get off my ass and do something about it. Why you don't have this point of view as it concerns THIS I think is strange since you don't seem to mind using it when brushing off on poor people. I guess YOUR shit does stink afterall. Sweetheart.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I've had lots of conservative professors believe it or not, some even in history. It does depend on the course somewhat. For example, if you take a history course about Society in Europe, you are probably going to get a liberal professor, but something like Japanese history is more likely to be taught by a conservative. My US History professor was quite conservative as well.

 

There is nothing wrong with having a professor of either political stance, provided their views don't affect what they are teaching or they are extremely hypcritical. I never had a problem with either.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I'm a mathematics professor. Should I have to be worried about getting sued by my students when I inform them that their answers are incorrect because they don't follow the mathematical rules I expect them to use? They could argue to a judge that they have their own system of mathematics and I should respect it, and, as crazy as it may seem, that would be LESS extreme than some of the examples already discussed, because mathematics is a synthetic subject rather than one based on fact and natural observation.

Damn you and your leftist coefficients!!!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Bush turned down an invitation to speak at an NAACP meeting. Bush opposes hate crime legislation.

So not going to a event some leftist group that disguises itself as a "civil rights organization" hosts and opposing a stupid idea constitute being anti-minority? Count me in then.

 

You don't think the majority of the soldiers dying in Iraq right now come from lower-middle class families?

 

Not sure on the stats, but they all volunteered, so I don't care if the soldiers are poor/middle class/well-off...

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Yeah, like it will pass a Democratic-leaning Florida State Senate, much less the next 2 committees.

Even if it did pass, I'm sure that the ACTIVIST judges in the Florida courts would overturn it anyway.

What's an activist judge, anyway? Really ...

Despite finding him to be pretentious and egotistical in general, I like Jon Stewart's definition here:

 

"An activist judge is a judge that rules against you."

[Special K 0]

I'm still waiting to hear how we're supposed to change Bio and Geo and Psychology in a beneficial way. All sciences are imperfect, but they also must be based on physical evidence. How should science accommodate political views on either side?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

"An activist judge is a judge that rules against you."

That is true, sadly. However, my definition is one that tends to see the Constitution as a living, breathing document...

[Guest MikeSC]

How the hell is one "anti-secular"? Has the GOP suddenly passed a bill stating that you have to be a Christian? I mean, if they have, feel free to post a link because that has not exactly made the news.

 

Faith based initiatives.

Allowing religios groups to handle charity, considering that unlike secular groups they actually give MOST of the money to the needy, is bad? So, screw efficiency?

Pushing for a ban on evolution in public schools.

Wasn't aware Republican platform involved banning evolution. I was also quite unaware that ALL or even MOST (hell, even MORE THAN A FIFTH) of conservatives support it.

 

You DO have figures to back that up, right?

 

No?

Opposing gay marriage and abortion, all for religious reasons. Repeat -- ALL FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to find abortion morally objectionable WITHOUT religion. NO WAY anybody could POSSIBLY find the idea of sucking a baby out of a womb offensive unless they're those damned Bible Thumpers, eh?

Anti-gay? Yes, because nobody can oppose the concept of gay marriage without hating gay people.

Opposing gay marriage isn't necessarily anti-gay. Opposing civil unions of any type is decidedly homophobic.

I actually find trying to ignore the voters to go to the courts in an issue they have no standing is decidedly anti-democratic, if it makes you happy.

Imagine if the Schiavo case involved a gay couple, and it was the parents that wanted to kill Terry off but her lesbian lover of many years was fighting to keep her alive. There would be no protection. At all.

Can I play "pointless hypotheticals"?

 

Imagine Terri was A DOG. Yeah! And somebody was starving it to death!

 

Wow, this is fun.

 

Yes, pointless. But fun.

Anti-poor? Oh give me a fucking break. Liberal welfare MADE poverty a borderline epidemic. It took CONSERVATIVES forcing welfare reform down Clinton's throat to improve their lot in life.

You don't think the majority of the soldiers dying in Iraq right now come from lower-middle class families?

So, people VOLUNTEERING for the military shows the Republicans are "anti-poor"?

 

Wow.

All the while, the Bush twins, who should be on the front lines with their father pushing this so aggressively, are getting pedicures in some salon or getting drunk and puking on themselves.

Sure. Why the hell should they have the right to join a volunteer army? They should HAVE to do so!

 

Hell, Chelsea should've spent YEARS in Bosnia.

 

Amy Carter? Oh yeah, should've had her ass deployed.

Increasing gas prices, which only serves to put more money in his pockets and make it harder for people to transport back and forth to work.

Just checking, you have the slimmest concept of "cause" and "effect" right?

 

We're prevented from withdrawing all of the oil we can due to some, oh, left-wing groups. MEANWHILE, demand for oil is increasing in China and India dramatically.

 

So, fairly stagnant supplies + dramatically increased demand = Republican conspiracy to raise prices?

 

Oooooookay.

It's an interesting (and wrong) viewpoint that welfare reform was "forced" on Clinton. Do you really think a low income stretches further in 2005 than it did in 1995?

It actually IS reality. Dick Moris informed Clinton that if he vetoed the bill again, he'd likely lose the election in 1996.

 

And do you think ENCOURAGING sloth is a way to improve things?

Regulations on business have been loosened, and the number of jobs created since 2000, compared to the number of jobs created in the 1990s, doesn't compare.

You are aware that the 1990's had that whole utterly fraudulent accounting keeping stock prices high, combined with insanely overvalued tech stocks, and a little problem on 9/11 played a small role, right?

Corporate scandals with Bush's campaign financers are taking away the life savings of innocent people. And now, he's wanting to kill social security.

Ironic, since ALL of the controversies started under Clinton and it was under Bush when the CEO's were punished.

 

And BUSH wants to kill Social Security?

 

Because there is NO problem with a system where present workers support retirees and, soon enough, there will be more retirees than workers.

 

NO need for concern there.

Anti-choice? Well, I'd rather be "anti-choice" than "pro-infanticide", but that's just me.

That would be a valid viewpoint if living infants were being killed. There's a difference between killing a fetus and killing a human being.

You do realize that if they ever isolate the "homosexual gene" that the gay community is convinced exists, there will be nothing short of a gay holocaust.

 

But you shouldn't care, because when those babies were killed, they weren't really humans.

 

Care to reveal when life begins?

Anti-minority? I suppose you have SOMETHING to back that up.

Bush turned down an invitation to speak at an NAACP meeting. Bush opposes hate crime legislation.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

I am stunned that you're ACTUALLY seriously mentioning either of those.

 

Bush doesn't meet with a corrupt special interest group? Well, damn him. He only has minorities in actual positions of power --- something the "pro-minority" party has never really felt much of a need for.

 

And hate crime legislation? Yes, because if a guy murders you because of your race or sexual orientation, you're just that much more dead.

I mean, no, you didn't INCLUDE it with this smear, but I'm sure it was just an oversight. I mean, you've heard conservatives referring to blacks as "puppets", "Uncle Toms","house niggers", and "Aunt Jemimas" lately right?

I disagreed with that myself, but the sentiment behind the (totally wrong) choice of words was lost on most people.

Bush not meeting with the NAACP = racism.

 

People calling Clarence Thomas a puppet or Condoleeza Rice an Aunt Jemima = misunderstood sentiment?

 

Wow, that is some GOOD hypocrisy ya got going on there.

Do you honestly believe that Condoleezza Rice is an independent woman who is willing to make the best decisions possible, or do you think she is someone passive Bush put in that position to promote his own agenda?

Wow, aren't you THE bigot around here?

 

Yup, no WAY Bush would bring in an eminently qualified, brilliant woman who happens to be black. She's just a puppet for him.

 

Try and avoid straining your shoulder patting yourself on the back over your progressive views.

And can you honestly say there's not even a small chance that she was put in that position because she was a black woman and therefore, she'd be an easy way to debunk the myth (if it is a myth) that conservatives are often racist or sexist. Hell, I'd prefer JANET RENO to be the secretary of state.

Ah, so you support utterly inept people in power, eh?

 

See, the ironic thing is that Bush didn't promise a "cabinet that looks like America" --- but he actually did a much better job of delivering one than the "first black President".

And you're the one who recently said that white people are afraid to befriend black people because they might get punished for saying something inappropriate.

Maybe I should call them racial slurs. Then you might not misinterpret what I say.

 

Well, the biggest plus, though, is that if you didn't write this, people would assume I made your post up.

Liberals are not the ones who openly embrace anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism has been forcefully embraced by elements of the American right for decades. I'll refer you to the speeches of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Spiro Agnew (not liberals).

Feel free to reference the "anti-intellectualism".

 

And then justify African-American studies. And Women's Studies. And the idiotic Middle Eastern Studies Departments.

Poverty existed to greater degrees before the advent of liberal welfare than it does now. Welfare was a response to epidemic poverty, not the creator of it.

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse. And it helped bring about the destruction of the American family and it's impact on inner cities was criminal.

So what are you complaining about Mike? That something is NOT FAIR??? Coming from the guy who says LIFE ISN'T FAIR when it concerns people who want a higher min. wage thats kinda funny. So a bunch of professors at some colleges are libs. So what. They can be that way if they want.

When you institutionally refuse to HIRE conservatives, it is blatant discrimination.

 

Colleges LOVE diversity --- just not intellectually.

So some conservative Prof. is getting heat or might be let go cuz his views don't JIVE with the rest of the school. Big deal! He can, if he is qualified, to get a job somewhere else. Right???

"Man, what were those black employees at Denny's bitching about? They can find another job somewhere else. Right???"

Why you don't have this point of view as it concerns THIS I think is strange since you don't seem to mind using it when brushing off on poor people. I guess YOUR shit does stink afterall. Sweetheart.

Because these anti-intellectual egomaniacs are doing one shitty job of educating our youth. So, you apparently are TOTALLY for discrimination --- just for the people you don't like.

 

Well, you ARE a liberal...

I'm still waiting to hear how we're supposed to change Bio and Geo and Psychology in a beneficial way. All sciences are imperfect, but they also must be based on physical evidence. How should science accommodate political views on either side?

Who was referring to all sciences?

 

If you wish to CONTINUE arguing against straw men, have a blast.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Wow, that went right over your head. What a dolt.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Anti-minority? I suppose you have SOMETHING to back that up.

Bush turned down an invitation to speak at an NAACP meeting. Bush opposes hate crime legislation.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

I am stunned that you're ACTUALLY seriously mentioning either of those.

 

Bush doesn't meet with a corrupt special interest group? Well, damn him. He only has minorities in actual positions of power --- something the "pro-minority" party has never really felt much of a need for.

 

And hate crime legislation? Yes, because if a guy murders you because of your race or sexual orientation, you're just that much more dead.

----------------

Feel free to reference the "anti-intellectualism".

 

And then justify African-American studies. And Women's Studies. And the idiotic Middle Eastern Studies Departments.

1. I agree about hate crime legislation. I've said the same thing about how first-degree murder is first-degree murder and someone said "UM. What about motive, DUMBASS!" yeah

 

2. Fill me in on what actually goes down in Middle Eastern Studies. I'd have to imagine that there's SOMETHING useful going on, seeing as there's so much historical significance in that region, I'd figure that such a class or department would be chock full of research and important stuff. African-American Studies = basketball major though

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

2. Fill me in on what actually goes down in Middle Eastern Studies. I'd have to imagine that there's SOMETHING useful going on, seeing as there's so much historical significance in that region, I'd figure that such a class or department would be chock full of research and important stuff. African-American Studies = basketball major though

There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in the one at my school, at least. Focusing on the recent and ancient development of the Middle East along with language training has become a really popular approach of late.

 

I'm not really sure what the problem is with any of the compartmentalized history/culture fields like Middle Eastern, African-American, or Asian studies. They tend to be interdisciplinary programs that allow a student to incorporate history, politics, anthropology, linguistics, and sometimes literature courses into their chosen field of study.

 

Sure, you can make your path through an easy one, but you can cruise through college in easy classes for pretty much any degree but the hardest of hard sciences if that's how you want to be. These majors, while certainly not vital, are no different than a concentration in American politics or European history.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh, Richard Milhouse.  Opened China, was constantly paranoid, and was the original "I have a plan!" candidate.  Except for him, it worked.

Also:

 

-EPA created

-OSHA instituted

-Clean Air Act

-Water Quality Improvment Act

-Increased funding for social welfare

 

All during Nixon's presidency.

 

 

 

 

Back on topic, though.

 

For the poor wittle college conservatives...

 

 

And...

 

Cultural Revolution.

[2GOLD 0]

Why do people only see this as a liberal vs conservative issue?

I'm in neither part of those insane groups and I got hit with the "I'm right, you're wrong even though I'm batty" professors.

 

The law is stupid but for people to say nothing needs to be done is mind-numbing. There shouldn't be a bias for either party when it comes to teaching. Teaching isn't about impacting your opinions on people, it's about getting the facts out and allowing discussion that would lead to smart choices and decisions for the future.

 

The professors who don't believe in that, liberal or conservative, need to be removed. And there is nothing worse than scheduling a meeting with the dean and have the door opened to see the teacher you are calling bs on sitting there and laughing along with the dean. Words cannot explain how screwed you feel.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why do people only see this as a liberal vs conservative issue?

Becuase that's the way it's always been, hippie.

 

Actually, if it can be proven a student's grade was affected because he didn't agree with the polics of his or her prof, then I think some action should be allowed to be taken. However, proving this bias would be hella hard to do...

[SuperJerk 0]

Poverty existed to greater degrees before the advent of liberal welfare than it does now. Welfare was a response to epidemic poverty, not the creator of it.

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse.

 

 

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

[2GOLD 0]

Why do people only see this as a liberal vs conservative issue?

Becuase that's the way it's always been, hippie.

 

Actually, if it can be proven a student's grade was affected because he didn't agree with the polics of his or her prof, then I think some action should be allowed to be taken. However, proving this bias would be hella hard to do...

 

I'm not a hippie!

I actually shower and love the taste of red meat. Plus I drive a gas chunging V8 truck.

 

Hippie's be damned!

 

And even if you had proof, the university doesn't care. Like I said, Colleges do a great job of protecting their own since their image would be effected if a student nailed one of their professors for bias. That's why I say College review boards should not be associated with the campus. It's the only way the students will ever get a fair shake.

[SuperJerk 0]

Liberals are not the ones who openly embrace anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism has been forcefully embraced by elements of the American right for decades. I'll refer you to the speeches of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Spiro Agnew (not liberals).

Feel free to reference the "anti-intellectualism".

 

And then justify African-American studies. And Women's Studies. And the idiotic Middle Eastern Studies Departments.

Wow, way to attack academia and totally prove my point for me, Mike!

 

Good job.

 

And it helped bring about the destruction of the American family and it's impact on inner cities was criminal.

 

If you have any real proof of this, please share. I've been hearing conservatives claim this for decades without any solid evidence of an actual cause-effect relationship.

 

I'd say proving welfare helped bring about the destruction of the family it is a pretty uphill battle anyways, considered the family hasn't actually been destroyed.

In other words, good luck.

[Guest MikeSC]

Anti-minority? I suppose you have SOMETHING to back that up.

Bush turned down an invitation to speak at an NAACP meeting. Bush opposes hate crime legislation.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

I am stunned that you're ACTUALLY seriously mentioning either of those.

 

Bush doesn't meet with a corrupt special interest group? Well, damn him. He only has minorities in actual positions of power --- something the "pro-minority" party has never really felt much of a need for.

 

And hate crime legislation? Yes, because if a guy murders you because of your race or sexual orientation, you're just that much more dead.

----------------

Feel free to reference the "anti-intellectualism".

 

And then justify African-American studies. And Women's Studies. And the idiotic Middle Eastern Studies Departments.

1. I agree about hate crime legislation. I've said the same thing about how first-degree murder is first-degree murder and someone said "UM. What about motive, DUMBASS!" yeah

 

2. Fill me in on what actually goes down in Middle Eastern Studies. I'd have to imagine that there's SOMETHING useful going on, seeing as there's so much historical significance in that region, I'd figure that such a class or department would be chock full of research and important stuff. African-American Studies = basketball major though

Imagine the bilge that spews forth from mosques in Saudi Arabia about the evils of Judaism and how Israel is the cause of all problems.

 

Imagine you have a college department dedicated to those notions.

 

That's what you got with Middle Eastern Studies.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

You had just as many people in poverty in 1994 as you did when the whole deal started. The figure POST-reform has not reached where it was PRE-reform. Odd, huh?

 

And that was after TRILLIONS were spent.

And illegitimacy rates skyrocketed.

And inner cities became hellholes.

And black families got nicely eradicated.

 

Are you going to attempt to defend the Great Society? Because you really, REALLY have no leg to stand on.

 

And I won't even MENTION how bad it got in places like NYC or San Francisco.

If you have any real proof of this, please share. I've been hearing conservatives claim this for decades without any solid evidence of an actual cause-effect relationship.

Yes, it's PURELY coincidental that illegitimacy rates just TOTALLY skyrocketed when welfare increased. It's a TOTAL coincidence. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that when the minimum wage in New York was HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE. I'm sure it's pure coincidence that in the 1950s, blacks were MORE likely than whites to be married (in 1960, 28% of black women were "never married" v 24% of whites) but in 1994, 56% of black women were never married (v 34% of whites).

 

How about illegitimacy? Well, in 1960, the illegitimact rate amongst whites was 2% and amongst blacks, it was 23%. In 1999? The white rate was 27% and the black rate was almost 70%. I'm sure the DESIRE for whites and blacks to suddenly start fucking like minks started in the 1960's. I'm sure it's PURE coincidence that the rate skyrocketed JUST as welfare was being elevated.

 

But, what if they weren't ALL welfare moms? The number of unmarried mother families on welfare, between 1965 and 1974, shot up from 4.3M to 10.8M.

I'd say proving welfare helped bring about the destruction of the family it is a pretty uphill battle anyways, considered the family hasn't actually been destroyed.

In other words, good luck. wink.gif

Explain the present illegitmacy rate.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

You had just as many people in poverty in 1994 as you did when the whole deal started.

You've still got a funny idea of what constitutes making something dramaticly worse.

 

I disproved your point, Mike. Admit it.

 

 

Are you going to attempt to defend the Great Society? Because you really, REALLY have no leg to stand on.

 

You know who doesn't have a leg to stand on? YOU, when YOU said:

 

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse.

 

That chart clearly shows that welfare did not increase poverty. It shows that the poverty rate went from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003, which is NOT an increase, dramatic or otherwise.

 

I disproved your point, Mike.

 

 

Yes, it's PURELY coincidental that illegitimacy rates just TOTALLY skyrocketed when welfare increased. It's a TOTAL coincidence.

 

Sarcasm isn't the same thing as solid evidence, and post hoc reasoning isn't the same thing as proof.

 

I'll give you an example of what evidence is.

Remember when you said:

 

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse.

 

and then I disproved you with evidence?

 

When you post evidence, you actually have to post evidence that has something to do with the point you were trying to make. Posting a bunch of illegitimacy statistics as proof that welfare helped destroy the American family doesn't do you any good unless you can create a solid link between welfare and illegitimacy (which you didn't do).

 

Of course, you CAN NOT prove that welfare is partially responsible for destroying the family, because families haven't been destroyed. Your entire premise is flawed.

 

_____________________________________

 

edit: For those of you who missed it earlier...

 

Poverty existed to greater degrees before the advent of liberal welfare than it does now. Welfare was a response to epidemic poverty, not the creator of it.

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse.

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

 

Damn, that felt good.

Edited March 27, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Guest MikeSC]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

You had just as many people in poverty in 1994 as you did when the whole deal started.

You've still got a funny idea of what constitutes making something dramaticly worse.

 

I disproved your point, Mike. Admit it.

 

 

Are you going to attempt to defend the Great Society? Because you really, REALLY have no leg to stand on.

 

You know who doesn't have a leg to stand on? YOU, when YOU said:

 

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse.

 

That chart clearly shows that welfare did not increase poverty. It shows that the poverty rate went from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003, which is NOT an increase, dramatic or otherwise.

 

I disproved your point, Mike.

 

 

Yes, it's PURELY coincidental that illegitimacy rates just TOTALLY skyrocketed when welfare increased. It's a TOTAL coincidence.

 

Sarcasm isn't the same thing as solid evidence, and post hoc reasoning isn't the same thing as proof.

 

I'll give you an example of what evidence is.

Remember when you said:

 

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse.

 

and then I disproved you with evidence?

 

When you post evidence, you actually have to post evidence that has something to do with the point you were trying to make. Posting a bunch of illegitimacy statistics as proof that welfare helped destroy the American family doesn't do you any good unless you can create a solid link between welfare and illegitimacy (which you didn't do).

 

Of course, you CAN NOT prove that welfare is partially responsible for destroying the family, because families haven't been destroyed. Your entire premise is flawed.

 

_____________________________________

 

edit: For those of you who missed it earlier...

 

Poverty existed to greater degrees before the advent of liberal welfare than it does now. Welfare was a response to epidemic poverty, not the creator of it.

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse.

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

 

Damn, that felt good.

*clears throat*

 

Go fuck yourself.

 

http://www.ukcpr.org/Publications/FB_2003.pdf

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, and more is coming.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You might as well have just posted a 54 page report detailing how Santa Claus is real, because that would have been just as valid.

 

Seriously, my revelation that poverty rates have gone down overall since the advent of the Great Society totally trumps anything else you could ever say on the subject.

 

 

Go fuck yourself.

 

Translation:

 

I lost but I'm too much of a cry-baby to admit it.

 

 

Oh, and I have no idea what I'm talking about because I'm just pulling this shit out of my ass.

Edited for accuracy.

[SuperJerk 0]

I've been thumbing through that report Mike posted for the last couple of minute and have yet to find any indication it actually proves what he says it does.

 

Mike, if you can provide a page number where they actually say something meaningful, can you share it with those of us who don't feel like slogging through 54 pages of two political science professors wacking each other off?

 

edit: Found it...its on the pages labelled 23-26. They basically say that they can come to no clear conclusion.

 

Mike strikes out again.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, and I have no idea what I'm talking about because I'm just pulling this shit out of my ass.

Edited for accuracy.

Seriously, go fuck yourself.

 

If you wish to ignore the overall INCREDIBLY negative impact ofwelfare on families, on cities, on individuals, you feel free.

 

It's the same myopic bullshit you always pull.

 

We spent TRILLIONS and did a bang-up job of killing our economy for most of the 70's in pursuit of your liberal pipe dream and it was an umitigated dud. A dud from which NO positive can be taken from, outside of the knowledge that conservative criticism of the programs was, in fact, dead-on accurate.

 

For DECADES, the "poor" tended to be new immigrants to this country --- starting with welfare, that ceased being the case as immigrants tended to ACTUALLY work and ACTUALLY advance, while welfare recipients sat on their asses, didn't do a damned thing, and remained in the same economic level they were ALWAYS in. No advancement --- and that actually requires some pretty impressive levels of effort in this country.

 

We saw families DESTROYED. Not hurt, DESTROYED. If you wish to ignore welfare's causal relationship with the increase in single motherhood amongst the youth, feel free. Obliviousness is one of the few things you do well. So, we had an increase in violence (one of the nice side effects of a major rise of illegitimacy) thanks to your do-gooder mentality that has been a net drain on America.

 

You don't find it even REMOTELY odd that povery rates DROPPED immediately after welfare reform? Dropped like a rock. And they have yet to reach the levels pre-welfare reform since. It's only been 10 years --- you'd think that losing the "Safety net" would have actually caused harm. All removing it did was ALLOW people to improve. God knows how much better people would have been if the net was removed MANY years earlier.

 

A 5% drop in poverty AFTER welfare reform? Care to explain THAT in your myopic world view? How can REMOVING welfare lead to a REDUCTION in poverty? And since removing it DID cause a reduction in poverty, it is simple logic to extrapolate that welfare was INFLATING poverty for YEARS.

 

Stick with inventing quotes. Because you utterly suck at logic.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Imagine the bilge that spews forth from mosques in Saudi Arabia about the evils of Judaism and how Israel is the cause of all problems.

 

Imagine you have a college department dedicated to those notions.

 

That's what you got with Middle Eastern Studies.

wtf. You've lost it, man. What is your insane frame of reference for that? I just spent about 15 minutes looking over Middle East Studies course offerings, descriptions, and student evaluation at UVA, Columbia, Yale, and a handful of other places to find common links among them. As I suspected, such dastardly, politicized topics such as "Intermediate Arabic," "Iranian Film," "History of Mesopotamia," "Judaism and God," and the dread "Independent Study" are set to annihilate our nation with their obviously subversive notions!

[SuperJerk 0]

^No, not the dreaded "Independent Study"!^

 

My stepdad didn't fight in Vietnam just so a bunch of liberal A-rabs could take an insideous course like that!

 

 

A 5% drop in poverty AFTER welfare reform? Care to explain THAT in your myopic world view? How can REMOVING welfare lead to a REDUCTION in poverty? And since removing it DID cause a reduction in poverty, it is simple logic to extrapolate that welfare was INFLATING poverty for YEARS.

Irrelevant, since welfare reform did not end welfare altogether. Besides, the chart clearly shows that poverty rates went UP AND DOWN between the 1960s and 1996, not that it was being inflated for years as you claim.

 

Now, let me share another interesting piece of reasoning that'll surely blow everyone's minds:

Remember that poverty graph I linked to earlier? Well, it does happen to show something which I doubt many are willing to admit: Poverty rates follow the business cycle. Therefore, welfare has probably had no real impact on them whatsoever. Poverty rates went down after the "removal" of welfare because of the business cycle, and poverty rates went up after Bush took office because of the business cycle!

 

Mike, I never once attempted to argue that the Great Society cured poverty. Your attempts to prove that I'm wrong because of this are therefore completely irrelevant. Your overall tendency is to assign positions to me which I do not hold, and this is just another example. You can not prove I'm wrong about things that I never said. You know that I support welfare, but you are incorrect about my reasons for doing so. I did disprove your belief that welfare made poverty dramatically worse.

 

Mike, if you'd actually listen to what I have to say, instead of projecting your ideas about what you think liberals believe onto me, you might learn something.

Edited March 27, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Well I don't think students should be able to sue, just more frivolous law suits, but I agree with Mike, shocking to say the least, on some of his points. I consider myself a liberal and I believe that being a liberal means that everyone should be able to voice their opinion, agree or disagree. I might agree with someone with liberal leanings, but I don't like it when someone who might have a different viewpoint is not allowed to voice without being yelled at or whatever these liberal professors do. I of course did not have too many college courses where there were many opportuntities to have political discussion, partially because many of my professors were boring and had the class asleep. That is what happens when you are Sport Management major, with minors in business and film studies (I wanted to take some fun courses). However, at UOP, if you were in International Studies or Poly-Sci, I heard of teachers who were leaning so far to the left. My buddy who was an International Studies major said that looking back at his studies, that there was never any room to discuss that maybe there are different viewpoints different from theirs. He was at another university where he found that too many times classroom conversations did not allow any room for differing opinions and that was really frustrating to him.

 

I think that often we don't like to hear different viewpoints from our own. These professors I often feel act this way and so their classrooms are run like a cable news "debate" show, where only one viewpoint is the correct one and everyone else is not. I am on my way to becoming a teacher and I feel that it is important that my students understand that not everyone will share your same beliefs. It is important to be respectful of the person whose viewpoints differ. I think that one thing that I do not like is how civil disagreement has turned into bicker sessions. One has to look to Hannity and Colmes and Crossfire to get two prime examples of how one thinks by yelling over another person is the best way to win an argument, when instead makes you look like one of my first graders I have subbed for and even then they act more mature than the adults on these shows. I have heard that it used to be Conservatives and Liberals might have a debate, disagree, but they talked to one another like civilized people. Now our leaders refuse to talk to one another and that can't be productive. Unfortunately, the leaders of tomorrow don't learn how to do this in these classes. Mike I also remember that you were in poly sci, so I am sure that you did have many classes like I mentioned. I might not agree with you on many issues, but even I think that you should be able to voice your opinion on this board or in a class.

 

Many of these professors don't like other viewpoints to have a voice, freedom of speech is selective to these professors. I was lucky not to have many classes with Ultra-Liberal teachers from hell, becuase that would have drove me crazy and I am liberal (Card-Carrying, Hippie-Commie Bastard). My philosophy is that I respect one for having an opinion that is different from mine, but I hope that person respects the fact that I might disagree with them. Of course I would feel the same way if there was, and yes there a Republican teachers, ultra conservative teachers (a rarity, but it could happen) who were doing the same thing. When one leans to far to one side or another, the boat will tip over. I know that when I finally become a teacher, and spread my liberal ways , that I will have my class be one of many ideas, liberal/conservative and none will be supressed because I don't agree with them. Even though I am planning on teaching elementary grades and most conversations will be over Spongebob and Digimon, I still would teach so that you could present your opinion and not lose a grade or whatever else these teachers do.

[SuperJerk 0]

Good response. Thanks for getting the conversation back on track.

 

 

Something I remember from college was that no matter how much I disagreed with a professor's opinion (I was a Republican until about 1998, by the way), he or she always seemed to give evidence to back it up. That's something a lot of students can't say.

[Guest MikeSC]

A 5% drop in poverty AFTER welfare reform? Care to explain THAT in your myopic world view? How can REMOVING welfare lead to a REDUCTION in poverty? And since removing it DID cause a reduction in poverty, it is simple logic to extrapolate that welfare was INFLATING poverty for YEARS.

Irrelevant, since welfare reform did not end welfare altogether. Besides, the chart clearly shows that poverty rates went UP AND DOWN between the 1960s and 1996, not that it was being inflated for years as you claim.

It completely ended the decades-old dependence on the system. It required people to get up and get jobs --- and they DID so. People could no longer stay on the system for many, many years.

 

And that dropped poverty to levels beneath where it was with welfare as it previously was. Welfare hurt the country and it undoubtedly DEEPLY hurt the people stuck in the never-ending cycle of dependence on it.

 

When the gov't makes getting a job LESS valuable than being on welfare, you have a system that deeply and profoundly damages the people who use it.

 

And the numbers AFTER welfare reform are better than they were in the decade before welfare reform.

 

You cannot BEGIN to dispute that.

Now, let me share another interesting piece of reasoning that'll surely blow everyone's minds:

Remember that poverty graph I linked to earlier?  Well, it does happen to show something which I doubt many are willing to admit: Poverty rates follow the business cycle.  Therefore, welfare has probably had no real impact on them whatsoever.

Except the poverty rate post-welfare reform during the most recent recession was STILL lower than the poverty rate on welfare reform at any point since the late 1970's. It was a solid 2-3% lower than it was during the last recession WITH welfare as the old system.

 

Nice try.

Poverty rates went down after the "removal" of welfare because of the business cycle, and poverty rates went up after Bush took office because of the business cycle!

STILL beneath the rate during the last recession by a nice margin.

Mike, I never once attempted to argue that the Great Society cured poverty.  Your attempts to prove that I'm wrong because of this are therefore completely irrelevant.  Your overall tendency is to assign positions to me which I do not hold, and this is just another example.  You can not prove I'm wrong about things that I never said.

Welfare made poverty worse. Your graph, like it or not, PROVES my point. The most recent recession's poverty rate was significantly lower than the PREVIOUS two recessions (1980-2 and 1991). And that is WITHOUT welfare.