who was best president of usa ?

[Camp]

I have a vested interest in educating our kids. That's why I do so for MINE. If we're all in it together, it's high time those who think someone else should provide for that college education for their kids start doing it for their own. You keep saying ALL when you really mean some. I'm doing my part for those for which I am responsible. I'm not responsible for someone else's kids. They chose to have them, they pay the costs.

Naw, dude, you are basically a guy who tries to intellectually defend being a malignant narcissist.

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

 

[JoeB131]

Using what you mentioned, and it's not your personal experience but the viewpoint, the basic difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the latter doesn't have a problem with anyone having what they've earned while the former thinks a portion of what someone earned, whether the earner was Liberal or Conservative, is owed to someone that didn't earn it.

Conservatives are for the rich using their wealth to abuse the rest of us. It almost always leads to disaster because as Herbert Hoover observed, "Capitalists are too damned greedy".

Here's the thing. I would like nothing better than to have no welfare or food stamps because every able bodied American has a full time remunerative job. But the guys who pay themselves 8 figure salaries to make generally awful decisions don't want that to ever happen.

Man, they couldn't wreck the economy fast enough when Clinton left. 4% unemployment and having to pay above minimum wage for McJobs? The Horror of it all.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

George W Bush. He kept us safe and caused liberals to have heart attacks.

 

[Camp]

George W Bush. He kept us safe and caused liberals to have heart attacks.

Bush keeping us safe is a misdirecting and fraudulent talking point. He did not keep us safe. His failure to respond adequately to the terrorist threat of al-Qaeda before and after 9/11 continues to be a major threat to America. He put Reagan's creation of acceptable terrorism and terrorist attacks on America on steroids.

 

[Conservative65]

Using what you mentioned, and it's not your personal experience but the viewpoint, the basic difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the latter doesn't have a problem with anyone having what they've earned while the former thinks a portion of what someone earned, whether the earner was Liberal or Conservative, is owed to someone that didn't earn it.

Conservatives are for the rich using their wealth to abuse the rest of us. It almost always leads to disaster because as Herbert Hoover observed, "Capitalists are too damned greedy".

Here's the thing. I would like nothing better than to have no welfare or food stamps because every able bodied American has a full time remunerative job. But the guys who pay themselves 8 figure salaries to make generally awful decisions don't want that to ever happen.

Man, they couldn't wreck the economy fast enough when Clinton left. 4% unemployment and having to pay above minimum wage for McJobs? The Horror of it all.

As a Conservative, I want to use what's mine for me since I'm the one that earned it. You aren't a part of that equation despite you thinking people actually consider you when they make choices.

No one pays him/herself an 8 figure salary. CEO's don't determine their salaries. Some other entity does.

It is horrible that someone is required to pay above what a job is worth and that the ones not doing the paying dictate how much that is. That's why there shouldn't be a minimum wage.

 

[JoeB131]

George W Bush. He kept us safe and caused liberals to have heart attacks.

Yes, George W. Bu sh kept us safe.

exccept for the 3000 people who died on 9/11 because he ignored a CIA warning.

And the 5000 people who died in Iraq because he lied about WMD's.

And the 2000 people who died in Hurricane Katrina because he was sitting on his ass at his ranch.

But other than that, you weren't likely to be killed under his watch. Just lose most of your money and your livlihood because of his awful economic management.

Hey, how's Jeb! doing?

 

[JoeB131]

As a Conservative, I want to use what's mine for me since I'm the one that earned it. You aren't a part of that equation despite you thinking people actually consider you when they make choices.

Then why do you piss yourself when a guy like obama gets elected?

You see, the amusing thing about you is that you probably don't have much more than I have and I suspect less. But you hope some day, little Billy, you'll be able to exploit the working class, unless some commie gives them rights or something.

No one pays him/herself an 8 figure salary. CEO's don't determine their salaries. Some other entity does.

Yes, a bunch of other rich guys who all agree they deserve 7 figure salaries. oddly, in Germany and Japan, where workers have a say in who gets to be CEO, no one gets eight figure salaries and few people get 7 figure salaries. Imagine that.

It is horrible that someone is required to pay above what a job is worth and that the ones not doing the paying dictate how much that is. That's why there shouldn't be a minimum wage.

Guy, I've worked a company that think like you. The employees stole merchandise and sold it out the back door and intentionally broke shit because they did not give two shits.

Here's the thing. When you pay employees well, they care.

When you pay them shit and they have to go to government to make up the difference, they keep voting for more government.

That you are too dumb to see this is kind of depressing. But if I get more out of just showing up once a year to vote than I do working 40 hours a week for a clueless asshole, I'm probably going to keep voting for more of that.

 

[Camp]

Using what you mentioned, and it's not your personal experience but the viewpoint, the basic difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that the latter doesn't have a problem with anyone having what they've earned while the former thinks a portion of what someone earned, whether the earner was Liberal or Conservative, is owed to someone that didn't earn it.

Conservatives are for the rich using their wealth to abuse the rest of us. It almost always leads to disaster because as Herbert Hoover observed, "Capitalists are too damned greedy".

Here's the thing. I would like nothing better than to have no welfare or food stamps because every able bodied American has a full time remunerative job. But the guys who pay themselves 8 figure salaries to make generally awful decisions don't want that to ever happen.

Man, they couldn't wreck the economy fast enough when Clinton left. 4% unemployment and having to pay above minimum wage for McJobs? The Horror of it all.

As a Conservative, I want to use what's mine for me since I'm the one that earned it. You aren't a part of that equation despite you thinking people actually consider you when they make choices.

No one pays him/herself an 8 figure salary. CEO's don't determine their salaries. Some other entity does.

It is horrible that someone is required to pay above what a job is worth and that the ones not doing the paying dictate how much that is. That's why there shouldn't be a minimum wage.

You are arguing that the employer has sole charge and power to determine what a job is worth. The opposing side is saying no, and you can not hide behind calling yourself "conservative". Competition determines the value of a job. Society has made it against the law to fix pay and prices between competitors in an industry or business. A minimum wage prevents greedy businesses from colluding to keep wages at unfair levels. Elected officials are tasked by citizens determine the minimum wage. Conservative have supported this concept over the years. Doing away with the right of the people to make this determination is a fascist concept, not a conservative one.

 

[Conservative65]

I have a vested interest in educating our kids. That's why I do so for MINE. If we're all in it together, it's high time those who think someone else should provide for that college education for their kids start doing it for their own. You keep saying ALL when you really mean some. I'm doing my part for those for which I am responsible. I'm not responsible for someone else's kids. They chose to have them, they pay the costs.

Naw, dude, you are basically a guy who tries to intellectually defend being a malignant narcissist.

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Calvin Coolidge.

His name is not on the list, but Obumbler's is.

Curious.

Most historians list Coolidge as one of the worse presidents, down there with Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.

"Most historians." LOL

Morons like you never seem capable of acknowledging that "historians" are usually liberal "academics" which means mindless liberals.

Try thinking on your own, you hapless dip shit.

 

[regent]

I have a vested interest in educating our kids. That's why I do so for MINE. If we're all in it together, it's high time those who think someone else should provide for that college education for their kids start doing it for their own. You keep saying ALL when you really mean some. I'm doing my part for those for which I am responsible. I'm not responsible for someone else's kids. They chose to have them, they pay the costs.

Naw, dude, you are basically a guy who tries to intellectually defend being a malignant narcissist.

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

 

[JoeB131]

"Most historians." LOL

Morons like you never seem capable of acknowledging that "historians" are usually liberal "academics" which means mindless liberals.

Try thinking on your own, you hapless dip shit.

Yes, people who actually study things are called Academics.

As opposed to people like you who don't, but someone on Hate Radio told you Calvin Coolidge was awesome.

Hey, did you hear about the USS Calvin Coolidge? Oh, that's right. No one considered Cal a good enough president to name a warship after.

The only Navy ship named after Coolidge was an ocean liner that was appropriated as a troop ship. It hit a mine laid by American destroyers and sank.

Not even Republicans felt Coolidge was good enough to name a ship after. Shit, they even named ships after Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and George Bush. That's how much of a boob Coolidge was. Few schools or bridges or government buildings are named after him, either.

 

[JoeB131]

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

Shhh... don't tell Cleetus that. He'll tell you he got an awful education (which shows, obviously) but he's a vast success (which no one believes.)

 

[Unkotare]

I have a vested interest in educating our kids. That's why I do so for MINE. If we're all in it together, it's high time those who think someone else should provide for that college education for their kids start doing it for their own. You keep saying ALL when you really mean some. I'm doing my part for those for which I am responsible. I'm not responsible for someone else's kids. They chose to have them, they pay the costs.

Naw, dude, you are basically a guy who tries to intellectually defend being a malignant narcissist.

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

 

[regent]

Naw, dude, you are basically a guy who tries to intellectually defend being a malignant narcissist.

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Naw, dude, you are basically a guy who tries to intellectually defend being a malignant narcissist.

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

 

[Unkotare]

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Doing what someone is supposed to do for themselves and their children while expecting others to do the same isn't being a narcissist. It's being personally responsible. Nothing wrong with expecting others to do what you've done when it's something they should be doing. That's all I'm expecting. I don't expect them to do anything I haven't already done. Are you saying people shouldn't do what they're supposed to do?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

You have no idea. You are just here to repeat leftist dogma.

 

[regent]

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

You have no idea. You are just here to repeat leftist dogma.

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Not everyone has the opportunity and/or capabilities to do what you have done. Unless you can come up with a solution or plan on what to do with the people who have not had those opportunities, do not have the capabilities that afford the financial stability needed to survive on some acceptable level, society is required to pay the cost of sustenance for some people because not doing so becomes ethically, religiously and morally unacceptable to the society tasked with making that cultural decision. Having old people sent out into the jungle to be eaten by wild animals may be acceptable in one society but not in another. Allowing mentally deficient individuals to beg and starve in the streets and gutters may be acceptable in one culture, and not in another. Allowing the disadvantaged to starve or die from easily curable illnesses may be OK in one culture, but not OK in another.
America is in a constant debate and argument about the level of poverty it considers acceptable on those ethical, religious and moral levels. Some people believe it is ethical, religious and moral to provide a minimum standard of nutrition, i.e., food to children while others believe it is not a requirement of government to do so. One side feels an obligation to prevent disease, starvation and harm to children by feeding them and the other side feels it is alright to let them suffer the consequences for their situation.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

You have no idea. You are just here to repeat leftist dogma.

Well let's start with Johnathon Kozol's "Savage Inequalities." True its old but so is the problem. I think Kozol's best on school inequalities was his: I can walk down the streets in your neighborhood and tell you what kind of schools you have.

 

[Unkotare]

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

You have no idea. You are just here to repeat leftist dogma.

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Bullshit. When I was in high school, I sat in classes with the kind who, today, say they didn't have the same opportunities I did. We all had the same books, teachers, desks, lessons, etc. What's not equal about that?

You use the tired old Liberal excuse that automatically assumes that if one person doesn't have what another person has the person without didn't have the chance. Not once do you take into account that those not having didn't use the opportunities they had.

When you say capabilities, you say skills. Society isn't required to offset someone's lack of skills. If someone quits high school and, as a result, can attain financial stability, does society owe them a living because their inability to do so is due to THEIR choice?

What you call a cultural decision is nothing more than a political ideology. You demand people have choices in life and I agree they should. What you don't demand that I do is when those choices produce bad results, the one making those choices should be responsible for them. When they can't, it's not someone's ethical, legal, or moral duty to pay for it. If someone chooses to do so on behalf of another, fine. If you choose for me to do it, it's not fine nor your place to do so. Saying that one person should be required to pay for the bad results of another person's choice when the person said butt out when they were making it is the sign of a dumbass. You may be willing to be told to butt out then want to offset costs, but my money doesn't belong to someone that didn't want me to say anything when they did it but now demands help when they can't afford it.

My parents are in their 80s. If they need help, it's my place not yours or anyone else to do so. My oldest daughter is in college. It's my place to pay for it nor yours or anyone else.

The side that believes certain things should be done won't do themselves what they say. They want to involve the government in doing something where, if they did it on their own, the government isn't involved.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

You have no idea. You are just here to repeat leftist dogma.

Well let's start with Johnathon Kozol's "Savage Inequalities." True its old but so is the problem. I think Kozol's best on school inequalities was his: I can walk down the streets in your neighborhood and tell you what kind of schools you have.

And what do you think you understand that to mean? Have you been in any of the schools you reference?

 

[regent]

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

You have no idea. You are just here to repeat leftist dogma.

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

If you believe that kids in America get the same education because you sat in a classroom you would be sadly mistaken. Add to that you apparently never had any exposure to critical thinking, evidence and so on. Kids in Beverly Hills high school are offered quite a different education than say kids on the south side of Chicago.

In what way, exactly?

Books are written on the differences and since you claimed to be a teacher might try doing your homework. If you cannot find any sources for differences in schools I will send you a couple of titles that can get you started.

You have no idea. You are just here to repeat leftist dogma.

Well let's start with Johnathon Kozol's "Savage Inequalities." True its old but so is the problem. I think Kozol's best on school inequalities was his: I can walk down the streets in your neighborhood and tell you what kind of schools you have.

And what do you think you understand that to mean? Have you been in any of the schools you reference?

It means that schools in wealthy neighborhoods have more money, different student bodies, different types of teachers different goals, and on and on. I've been in Beverly Hills high school and Chicago's Englewood high school. Vast difference.

 

[rdean]

Well, we know who was the worst. Hint, Republicans won't let him anywhere near their convention.