T1B

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:59 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.

Bill Cosby?

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:08 pm**

Mikey wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.
Bill Cosby?

But seriously, I'm not sure if it's anyone's job. The solution has to come from within. But in the meantime it seems like there is something that can be done for the children.

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:13 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:The GOP hates education spending because their voter base is ignorant, uneducated, racist assholes. Educated Americans don't vote GOP. Fact.
Plenty of educated rich people vote Republican because they understand that it is in their interest to maintain the current system.

The people you speak of are poor people who should understand voting for a party that supports taxes for the rich and corporate welfare is not in their best interests.

You have a very narrow minded view of people's voting decisions.

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:22 pm**

ML@Coyote wrote:
But seriously, I'm not sure if it's anyone's job. The solution has to come from within. But in the meantime it seems like there is something that can be done for the children.

I'm watching the Tour Championship.

See: Tom Cousins.

He figured it was his job.

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:34 pm**

Thanks for that.

I knew nothing about him.

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:06 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:But is it your take that education is solely the responsibility of the local community to prioritize and fund, and that the feds should stay completely out of it and put its faith in states and municipalities to educate our youth to meet the demands of the global markets, economies, and technological challenges? The obvious argument you can make is that the system seemed to work well enough to propel us into global technological and economic leadership before the feds got involved, so why not again? A counterargument would be that the world has changed and the lead we once enjoyed over other countries has shrunk or disappeared, and removing federal dollars and involvement from primary education would set us even further back behind those countries who emphasize and support education nationally.

I've been thinking about this, Smackie. I watched my two sons go through the public K-12 educational system, and I don't remember seeing any evidence that they were being prepared to face global markets, economies, or technological challenges, with or without any prodding by the Feds.

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:14 pm**

ML@Coyote wrote:I watched my two sons go through the public K-12 educational system, and I don't remember seeing any evidence that they were being prepared to face global markets, economies, or technological challenges, with or without any prodding by the Feds.

Public K-12 education by itself will not provide that preparation, nor should it. What it should do, imo, is provide enough practical knowledge and information to young people to optimize their chances for success and societal contributions as adults. Part of that preparation is early identification of a student's "track" to adulthood. For most students, the appropriate tracks will be fairly easy to correctly identify early on in their academic careers. Some students will clearly exhibit strengths that will guide decisions to place them on college prep tracks, while others' strengths will steer them toward the crafts/trades/vocational tracks. Some could go either way, and the track system should be flexible enough to accommodate them.

Those who go to college will primarily be expected to tackle the aforementioned challenges, and it's the responsibility of the universities in partnership with industry (and, yes, perhaps even government) to prepare young adults to face them. The public K-12 system college prep track system should adequately prepare those on it to be able to hit the ground running when they start college, giving the institutions of higher learning the luxury of having to provide only minimal levels of remedial education, allowing them to set higher admissions and graduation standards and have them met.

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:18 pm**

ML@Coyote wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:But is it your take that education is solely the responsibility of the local community to prioritize and fund, and that the feds should stay completely out of it and put its faith in states and municipalities to educate our youth to meet the demands of the global markets, economies, and technological challenges? The obvious argument you can make is that the system seemed to work well enough to propel us into global technological and economic leadership before the feds got involved, so why not again? A counterargument would be that the world has changed and the lead we once enjoyed over other countries has shrunk or disappeared, and removing federal dollars and involvement from primary education would set us even further back behind those countries who emphasize and support education nationally.
I've been thinking about this, Smackie. I watched my two sons go through the public K-12 educational system, and I don't remember seeing any evidence that they were being prepared to face global markets, economies, or technological challenges, with or without any prodding by the Feds.

My two kids went through local pubic schools for K-12, and a public university (both at UC Irvine). Both were National Merit finalists. The older one has a Masters degree in accounting and is halfway through her CPA exams during her first year of employment, and the other is employed as a mechanical engineer. I'm not trying to boast, but just pointing out that they don't seem to have been hurt by going through the public school system. Our school district is not particularly wealthy, but we have been blessed with some excellent and dedicated teachers that really motivated our kids.

That, and brilliant parents.

Posted: **Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:57 pm**

ML@Coyote wrote:
Rooster wrote:political activism.
Should be forbidden in our schools. Students should be encouraged to argue and discuss, but the school itself should take no position on anything.

Stop confusing people...they'll stop thinking CAL is a liberal school, which doesn't preach "critical thinking" and/or a "sink or swim" policy.

Shame on you.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:28 am**

FiatLux wrote:Stop confusing people...they'll stop thinking CAL is a liberal school, which doesn't preach "critical thinking" and/or a "sink or swim" policy.

Shame on you.

During my first year at Cal, I took Econ. During one of our lecture classes, the prof brought in a little fellow who looked like an emaciated cross between Karl Marx and Che Guevara. He was there to describe his communist party campus organization to us and ask if anyone wanted to join up. I remember he handed out fliers. The prof said the administrators required that the guy have access to his students. I was weird, to say the least, especially in light of the fact that thousands of Americans had just died "fighting communism" in Vietnam. The war had just ended a year earlier.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:39 am**

ML@Coyote wrote:
FiatLux wrote:Stop confusing people...they'll stop thinking CAL is a liberal school, which doesn't preach "critical thinking" and/or a "sink or swim" policy.

Shame on you.
During my first year at Cal, I took Econ. During one of our lecture classes, the prof brought in a little fellow who looked like an emaciated cross between Karl Marx and Che Guevara. He was there to describe his communist party campus organization to us and ask if anyone wanted to join up. I remember he handed out fliers. The prof said the administrators required that the guy have access to his students. I was weird, to say the least, especially in light of the fact that thousands of Americans had just died "fighting communism" in Vietnam. The war had just ended a year earlier.

Ahhh, the Angela Davis era and the scumbags known as the "Black Panthers". Good times. I'm sure you remember the fun bunch known as "the weathermen"., as well as the SLA.

I remember a lecture class at CAL with around 500 us in organic chemistry... and the highest grade was a 48. Thank god, CAL was on the curve, or all of us would have flunked the course. Too funny.

I've been embarrassed by the the schools' policies as of late. Not what the school actually represents.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:10 am**

88 wrote:Both of my sons were educated in the local public schools (they did attend Montessori school when we lived in a shittier part of the metropolis). My wife and I were too. One of my sons is a college drop-out, and that was the right decision for him. It wasn’t for him. And he has found another path that is much better for him. The other is studying engineering, again in a public university (his parents’ alma mater). And that is the right fit for him.

But just like you can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink, you can bring a kid into the classroom but cannot make him think. He has to want that.

I have one son who hated school, and wanted to drop out of high school. It was like pulling teeth just to get him through the 12th grade. He had no desire at all for college even though we were willing to pay for it. Further, he will accept no money from us. He is living in LA on his own, working two jobs and trying to break into the music business. He is fiercely independent and the kid doesn't cost us a dime. My second son did great in high school, and went right into college. He's been to four colleges, trying to find himself. He's worked in between colleges doing this and that. Now he's thirty years old, and guess what? He's in college again! This time to become a computer coder. Unlike my other son, this kid has cost us a fortune.

Sooo...I have one horse that won't drink the water at all, and another that won't get his face out of the trough.

All kids are different.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:32 am**

FiatLux wrote:I remember a lecture class at CAL with around 500 us in organic chemistry

From organic chemistry to parking garage attendant.

WTG, dumbfukk.

...or liar.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:04 am**

Smackie Chan wrote:
88 wrote:You want to fix the schools and the education problem in this country? You need to fix the families.
...
If you want to improve the schools, improve the families.
To whom are you directing this message? ML? Government? Individual heads of household? How how do you propose it be achieved, and who should go about the task of installing this fix?

As ML said, fed involvement began as an effort to afford children in poverty-stricken regions a semblance of quality education, which on the surface seems to be a noble objective. Perhaps in hindsight the unintended consequences outweigh whatever benefits might have been realized. But in your opinion, what should have been done? Nothing? The chances of these communities pulling themselves out of a poverty-driven death spiral on their own is slim to none. We as a nation should just write them off? Granted, we historically have and still do write off segments of society for various reasons; just wondering if poor children who would otherwise have no shot at getting a decent primary education is among those groups you'd be fine with writing off.

At the global competition level, countries that lead the way are those that emphasize - at the national level - the importance of education and starting it early. Granted, not everyone is cut out for college, and we should have a much better system that affords young people trade and vocational training to prepare them for adulthood rather than a system of college or nothing (which is an exaggeration). But is it your take that education is solely the responsibility of the local community to prioritize and fund, and that the feds should stay completely out of it and put its faith in states and municipalities to educate our youth to meet the demands of the global markets, economies, and technological challenges? The obvious argument you can make is that the system seemed to work well enough to propel us into global technological and economic leadership before the feds got involved, so why not again? A counterargument would be that the world has changed and the lead we once enjoyed over other countries has shrunk or disappeared, and removing federal dollars and involvement from primary education would set us even further back behind those countries who emphasize and support education nationally.

But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.

Men. However, I come from a traditional family with traditional values and the traditional family set-up— you know, the gold standard in society for the nuclear family. It has been instilled in me that men are responsible for the health of their marriage, the well being of the children, and is the provider, protecter, and disciplinarian. It is the husband and father’s duty towards his spouse and children to ensure that they are given the best opportunities in life with a support system made up of a nurturing mother and a hands on dad. He determines the direction the family moves in, and what the moral climate is under their roof.

It really isn’t rocket science, but we’ve been trying to reinvent the wheel for decades now when it comes to families under the aegis of inclusion and diversity thinking all the while that our children will not suffer from the chaos that ensues when the basic family structure disintegrates. But I’m slope headed and Neanderthal like that.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:28 pm**

Rooster wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.
Men. However, I come from a traditional family with traditional values and the traditional family set-up— you know, the gold standard in society for the nuclear family. It has been instilled in me that men are responsible for the health of their marriage, the well being of the children, and is the provider, protecter, and disciplinarian. It is the husband and father’s duty towards his spouse and children to ensure that they are given the best opportunities in life with a support system made up of a nurturing mother and a hands on dad. He determines the direction the family moves in, and what the moral climate is under their roof.

It really isn’t rocket science, but we’ve been trying to reinvent the wheel for decades now when it comes to families under the aegis of inclusion and diversity thinking all the while that our children will not suffer from the chaos that ensues when the basic family structure disintegrates. But I’m slope headed and Neanderthal like that.

The reality is that broken homes can work equally well as intact homes. And from what I've seen, there is no guarantee that the dad-as-boss Ward and June Cleaver family structure is any better than a broken home. I have friends that come from broken homes that have become very happy and successful. I have friends who have come from broken homes who have not become happy and successful. I have friends who have come from intact homes who have had lousy lives, and others who have had great lives. What a lot of people miss is the fact that success in a person's life is largely their own responsibility, and has little to do with whether they were raised by one loving parent or two, I have no statistics to show you. This is just what I've seen over the course of my life.

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:22 pm**

I have a Guatamalan friend who is married with children and lives in a lousy part of LA. He is a permanent resident and his kids are citizens. When I was building construction projects, he worked for me a lot and we became friends. He doesn't make much money, and lives from paycheck to paycheck. He has constantly had to battle gangs, drugs, and crime taking a hold of his childrens' lives. I knew his son when he was a rug rat. Nice little kid. Now he is a young man. He graduated near the top of his class in high school and earning a full scholarship to a college where he is now majoring in business. My question is: if a kid really wants to break out of his parents' economic status and go to college and get a good job and live in a nice neighborhood and become a productive member of society, is it already possible? Or is this kid an exception to the rule?

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:19 pm**

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

John Steinbeck

Posted: **Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:24 pm**

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

John Steinbeck

That's a great quote.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:17 am**

Screw_Michigan wrote:The GOP hates education spending because their voter base is ignorant, uneducated, racist assholes. Educated Americans don't vote GOP. Fact.

This gentleman pretty much sums it up for you, if not before, right at about 3:45.

You should probably check him out. He’s quite the educated guy. And went to Harvard before affirmative action.

https://youtu.be/5KHdhrNhh88[/youtube]

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:51 am**

ML@Coyote wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.
Men. However, I come from a traditional family with traditional values and the traditional family set-up— you know, the gold standard in society for the nuclear family. It has been instilled in me that men are responsible for the health of their marriage, the well being of the children, and is the provider, protecter, and disciplinarian. It is the husband and father’s duty towards his spouse and children to ensure that they are given the best opportunities in life with a support system made up of a nurturing mother and a hands on dad. He determines the direction the family moves in, and what the moral climate is under their roof.

It really isn’t rocket science, but we’ve been trying to reinvent the wheel for decades now when it comes to families under the aegis of inclusion and diversity thinking all the while that our children will not suffer from the chaos that ensues when the basic family structure disintegrates. But I’m slope headed and Neanderthal like that.
The reality is that broken homes can work equally well as intact homes. And from what I've seen, there is no guarantee that the dad-as-boss Ward and June Cleaver family structure is any better than a broken home. I have friends that come from broken homes that have become very happy and successful. I have friends who have come from broken homes who have not become happy and successful. I have friends who have come from intact homes who have had lousy lives, and others who have had great lives. What a lot of people miss is the fact that success in a person's life is largely their own responsibility, and has little to do with whether they were raised by one loving parent or two, I have no statistics to show you. This is just what I've seen over the course of my life.

They can, no question about it. But the reality is that according to every metric, a traditional two parent family is far and away the best indicator for the children’s success in life covering everything from their economic potential to fewer divorces to better health to a greater satisfaction with their sexual relationship. And it’s easy to see why: there is more stability, more nurturing, more attention being paid, more time being spent, and an overall calm that enhances a child’s perception of himself and how he fits in the world.

Broken families or non-traditional ones can and do have successes, but it much like spotting your competitor in a basketball game half the points needed to win. Before you’ve even started you already behind. Beyond that, it is the man’s role to support the wife who remains at home to raise and nurture the children. He lovingly disciplines them when necessary, guides them, lavishes affection on them, and makes the time to be available for his family each and every day— and not by plopping himself down in front of the television in the evening or the weekends.

Like I said, it’s not rocket science. But we have convinced ourselves that there are many alternative pathways to success and that we can have everything, yet remain answerable only to ourselves for our choices, actions, and behavior. And right there is the lie. Moms can’t have a career and children and do both to 100%. Dads can’t spend all week at the office and do overtime and expect that money or clothes or a car is a fair exchange for his time with the children.

Posted: **Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:14 pm**

Wolfman wrote:Very telling that "social security" is even an expense. If it had been truly an investment for retirees, it would have been self-sustaining. Sadly all it is now is a huge welfare system (visit a local office and count how many there are actually retirees) and IOU on the future.

What a coinkydink. I was at the local Social Security office a 9:00 AM this morning when the office opened. Actually I got there a little past 8:30 and there were already 7 people waiting outside. That waiting room filled rather quickly. Maybe about a third were old people (I include myself in that group, even if I don't look the part). The rest were of varying ages, shades of brown and nationalities.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:18 am**

Serious question Goobs, what takes you to the SS office? Are people required to show up in person if they want to start the benefit collection process? I would have thought everything could be completed online?

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:10 pm**

Left Seater wrote:Serious question Goobs, what takes you to the SS office? Are people required to show up in person if they want to start the benefit collection process? I would have thought everything could be completed online?

I had questions I wanted to ask that online didn't answer. I also had a friend who went there recently and said that the people there were very friendly and helpful. I guess I prefer interacting with people rather than computer screens.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:31 pm**

88 wrote:After age 112, they don’t believe you are still alive unless you are a voter in Chicago.

That and it’s next to the liquor store.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:40 pm**

Haven’t much to add to what 88 and dins haven’t already said.

I do have a small disagreement with dins. There should be some federal education spending. GI bill and possibly some related to military needs. But it would be an extremely small fraction of what is spent today.

As for teacher unions, and unions in general, there should be no federal employee unions. Period. End of statements. Even FDR, who put us on this road to the feds being the solution to all problems, understood this.

States should be free to determine state employee union regs. Same goes for county/town governments.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:11 pm**

ML@Coyote wrote:
Rooster wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:
But basically, I'm just curious about whose job it is to lead the effort to fix America's broken families, and how that effort should play out.
Men. However, I come from a traditional family with traditional values and the traditional family set-up— you know, the gold standard in society for the nuclear family. It has been instilled in me that men are responsible for the health of their marriage, the well being of the children, and is the provider, protecter, and disciplinarian. It is the husband and father’s duty towards his spouse and children to ensure that they are given the best opportunities in life with a support system made up of a nurturing mother and a hands on dad. He determines the direction the family moves in, and what the moral climate is under their roof.

It really isn’t rocket science, but we’ve been trying to reinvent the wheel for decades now when it comes to families under the aegis of inclusion and diversity thinking all the while that our children will not suffer from the chaos that ensues when the basic family structure disintegrates. But I’m slope headed and Neanderthal like that.
The reality is that broken homes can work equally well as intact homes. And from what I've seen, there is no guarantee that the dad-as-boss Ward and June Cleaver family structure is any better than a broken home. I have friends that come from broken homes that have become very happy and successful. I have friends who have come from broken homes who have not become happy and successful. I have friends who have come from intact homes who have had lousy lives, and others who have had great lives. What a lot of people miss is the fact that success in a person's life is largely their own responsibility, and has little to do with whether they were raised by one loving parent or two, I have no statistics to show you. This is just what I've seen over the course of my life.

Kids from broken homes can succeed. I am living proof.

Kids from intact families can end up on the end of a jizz mop.

But it’s not the way to bet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:21 pm**

ML@Coyote wrote:
FiatLux wrote:Stop confusing people...they'll stop thinking CAL is a liberal school, which doesn't preach "critical thinking" and/or a "sink or swim" policy.

Shame on you.
During my first year at Cal, I took Econ. During one of our lecture classes, the prof brought in a little fellow who looked like an emaciated cross between Karl Marx and Che Guevara. He was there to describe his communist party campus organization to us and ask if anyone wanted to join up. I remember he handed out fliers. The prof said the administrators required that the guy have access to his students. I was weird, to say the least

I think you're still weird, BTW.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:32 pm**

Papa Willie wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:I think you're still weird, BTW.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:17 pm**

Meltspray wrote:

You'll never learn, fatso.

Posted: **Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:26 pm**

Papa Willie wrote:You were going along. I threw a carrot out there, and you bit just like a lil' rabbit.

So easy!

Uh, no. I made a flip comment to ML, you being a good little retard attention whore puppet responded to me. You're really not very good at this. Good night, bitch.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:31 pm**

You fuck up every thread. It's just your M.O.

T1B

What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?

Re: What does it say?