"That should cause our wrong-wing wregulars a wrenching feeling in their widdle worlds."
Nice. I watched Twetty and Sylvester too.
No, actually it makes us shake our heads in amazement at the continued silliness and lack of intelligent discourse from you guys.
It also makes us smile because it shows that you still "don't get it" - and probably never will. Which means that we'll continue to win elections in this country.
Why don't you just start calling your site "www.scrapplefacejr.com"? The material here is no different than what you find there.
Posted by David at February 13, 2006 04:10 AMWhat is it they dont get, David?
As me being a european, please explain.
Posted by Greup at February 13, 2006 04:48 AMIt also makes us smile because it shows that you still "don't get it" - and probably never will.
No David, we get it loud and clear, but evidently you do not. My concern is that by the time "you get it", it will be too late.
Posted by Judith at February 13, 2006 04:55 AMGreup, good question.
Posted by Judith at February 13, 2006 04:56 AMRcprctng rtrts, vry msng whn plyd t lpng ch f "Hw dr y qstn r ptrtsm?"
[Editor: ignore=off]Did you hear the story about African American moms who lost children fighting in Iraq? Black Voices for Peace reports one mom, asked to meet with Asshole, called the WH and said: "I'll come, but I want you to tell Bush I need all expenses paid, air fare, hotel etc." The WH said, "We'll get back to you on that." She was flown into DC and with other moms, met the Man in the Oval Office. He approached each mom and gave them the Presidential Medal. His remark to these ladies, (keep in mind, he holds the office of the President, and the recipients are African American women, suffering losses of beloved children dying in a phony war). He said, "Now don't you be going selling this on EBay!"
Then he asked this particular mom, "How about a hug?" She said, "That'll be pushing it."
Does this little ditty express the nature of the beast or what?
Posted by Mal Feasance at February 13, 2006 05:14 AMA couple of months ago I simply gave up trying to have a reasonable discourse w/a couple of my 'conservative' co-workers as it was completely pointless. The final straw came when one came by my cube wanting to go over something or another. I was busy and said "I'm not interested in wasting another minute of my life talking politics with a Republican." And that was it. It worked so well, I've used it twice since then. I really don't plan on ever discussing politics again with these people. Frankly, I'm not interested in what they have to say.
Posted by weinerdog43 at February 13, 2006 05:23 AMPutting winning elections ahead of everything else, including morals, to suckle at the huge corporate teats.
Eliminating the middle class, preventing health care for all, 30% credit cards, and keeping 80% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of greedy, crooked pigs. ETC. ETC.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 13, 2006 05:30 AMThey not one hate America, they hate Americans. Look at the cuts to this and that, it is clear that the GOP Hates, dare I say, Loaths the Americans that make up America.
Posted by Marq at February 13, 2006 06:01 AMThe GOP is a cult. You shouldn't expect rational thought or discourse from cultists. See dickhead David's post for proof.
Yes, David, you stinking pile of GOParasite shit, I do "get it." I get that you're a kool-aid drinking lackey who has willfully forfeited your God-given gift of rational thought and critical thinking to be a member of a cult which tells you what to think and what to say and who to hate. You're pathetic and weak, but as I've said before, that will serve as no excuse when the Reckoning comes. And come it will, and soon.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 06:15 AM"Sometimes the people who still fervently support George W. Bush seem just plain stupid, and other times it seems they must be dishonest and even malevolent, harboring a hatred for their country that allows them to support misguided ideas and private agendas over the public good." Gee right from the start you can feel the love oozing from this idiot.
24.10.3.55
Yuba City,CA
Love? Huh. What's your point? We'll start "caring" and "loving" Bush supporters when they stop stabbing us in the back and the front.
Posted by Paul at February 13, 2006 07:09 AM"How dare you question our patriotism?"
I agree. When you question our patriotism because we don't accept torture, wars of (in)convenience, regressive taxation, failure to support the social good, election fraud and the gentrification of higher education one can only conclude that you have lost the ability to engage in rational decision making. It's not that you can't disagree with us, it's the expectation that you can disagree without rational reasons and in lock-step with a political ideology that defies explanation. You are the best example of America 2nd, Me 1st on the blog...hell, and you're not even an American.
that you still "don't get it"
"What I believe defies explanation. Indeed, even I can't explain it myself. But you must believe as I do, without deviation and regardless of my inability to explain what I believe, even when it's obvious I fail to understand what I believe. So now, what about this don't you get?"
You're an unthinking git. What separates us is that you have "beliefs" about things, while we "think" about things. The chasm between us is massive.
Posted by phidipides at February 13, 2006 07:28 AMWhenever I'm feeling intellectually thirsty I know I can come here for a pint. That said, I'm weary of knowing that if the ground swell is successful, that because the Dem leadership has not strongly challenged this admin that when the White House is once again under a Dem leadership that so much time, effort and resources will need to be thrown at fixing the previous 8 years we will lose opportunities to move forward and that the vicious cycle will again turn with the Dems fixing, then the Rep back in office and we're torn down again. That's why today may be more important that tomorrow because tomorrow, this time, may simply be too late. thanks for all the fights you fight.
Posted by mainsailset at February 13, 2006 07:36 AMI have decided to take on a fundie Xtian approach with certain Republicans. Going forward I will hate the stupidity not the stupid.
We should all be much more compassionate with our Cult-of-Personality addled. They have chosen a life style that is not kind to them. It arises from fear, leads to bigotry and ends ultimately with hubris. They place their worldly man-made party before God and the Constitution. As such it is an abomination but we must remember that we are all weak, flawed humans. With love and through a personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ morality will prevail.
God Bless
Posted by j swift at February 13, 2006 07:45 AMthe party lines are too strictly drawn by republicans and democrats alike. the idea of conservatives and liberals only breaks down the inmeasurable distance between the people who support the capitalistic economy and that wealth and control is the barometer of success and honor, and the opposing faction that put more rationale thought toward humanity and liberty inherent to freedom of life. however, i ask that you consider the halfhearted attempts of the democrats to cheack this republican administration, and weigh the amount of influence that corporate america has on the democrats. both parties are evil, it is only easier for those of us who have ideals differing from republicans to side with the liberal democrats. neither party cares about this country or the people whom inhabit it, the government is the highest form of corporate corruption regardless of party or political ideology, they always fuck over the people.
and i hope God of War is right and that the day of reckoning will come for all those holding government positions. i say we impeach all the fucks, divide the country into autonomous regions of authority, and try all previous members of the government and corporate heads for treason and upon their convictions kill them all for their perpetual acts of treason against this nation.
Posted by lonemess at February 13, 2006 07:52 AM"They grow more tiresome as they have less and less with which to argue."
After reading that, David eagerly rushes to post the first comment on this thread. And what, substantively, does he have to say? Absolutely nothing!
Empty headed and egomaniacal----what a combination.
Some of us argued yesterday that the true basis of support for Nero Jr. is hatred of the despised "liberals" whom he has "defeated".
The defeat of "leftists" is far more satisfying to those of David's ilk than concern for the objective damage to the country resulting from Bushco's indefensible policies and absurd incompetence. Obviously the writer of the linked piece here tends to agree with that view.
Posted by euzoius at February 13, 2006 07:52 AMThe defeat of "leftists" is far more satisfying to those of David's ilk than concern for the objective damage to the country resulting from Bushco's indefensible policies and absurd incompetence. Obviously the writer of the linked piece here tends to agree with that view.
Posted by euzoius at February 13, 2006 07:52 AM
****
Yes, but equally important their leader, and thus their philosophy, must be seen as superior to liberalism. Hence, the complete denial of Bush's incompetence and the constant comparison to Clinton.
Posted by sf at February 13, 2006 08:45 AMGeorge W. Bush and his gang hate us for our freedom.
Posted by Edward Copeland at February 13, 2006 09:11 AMBREAKING: PLAME WAS WORKING ON IRAN AS SHE WAS OUTED BY BUSHCO
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html
If this were to actually get in the news.....
Posted by The Truth at February 13, 2006 09:16 AMThe meme expands - Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory:
Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.
It really sounds like a personality cult. It is impervious to reasoned argument and the only attribute is loyalty to the leader. Whatever it is, it isn’t conservative.
The Truth is getting out there - at last!
Posted by pessimist at February 13, 2006 09:37 AMBREAKING: PLAME WAS WORKING ON IRAN AS SHE WAS OUTED BY BUSHCO
Plame wern't no coh-vert agent. Youn's don't even know what coh-vert means! You lib-earls is all Brokeback Mountain faggots! Ain't no woman can be a coh-vert agent. Hour gov-ment is trying to keep you faggots safe, and all you can do is support them 14th sentry' lovin ragheads. Why cain't you get in line and be real Mer-cans fer once't? God damn all you lib-earls to hell!
Posted by phidipides as a Red State voter at February 13, 2006 09:40 AMHerein lies the rub folks...
For a minute (or even 15 seconds) consider that Republicans win elections on the issues. Attempt to erase it from your brain for 10 seconds (I'd settle for 5) your belief that the American voting public is just being fooled by a tricky (or downright nasty) Republican Party.
Assuming you were able to feel a sliver of objectivity for even a split second or so... what it is that came to your mind? What possible reason could a clear thinking public have for voting Republican?
Perhaps it is National Security. Perhaps deep down they do wonder if Senators who were ex anti-war protestors who voted against national defense spending over and over and then voted for the 87 billion beforse voting against it... would make a strong President during a war? Is that possible?
Perhaps it is issues of social conservatism? Is it possible that Ted Kennedy accusing a dignified Justice like Samuel Alito of being a racist doesn't play well to the mainstream public? C'mon... is it possible? Perhaps the public actually doesn't hate the idea of conservative Justices?
Perhaps it is not evil for an American to be opposed to a third trimester abortion? Is that possible? Is it possible that a Liberal stating that overturning Roe v Wade would result in back alley coat hanger abortions is a bit over the top, considering that any state that wanted to could still keep Abortion 100% legal? Isn't it possible that believing states can make their own laws on the subject can be something other than hatred of all woman?
Perhaps it is not evil for an American to cherish the concept of a marriage being between a man and a woman? Whether you agree or disagree, isn't it possible that this is a position that can be found without hanging out with demons?
Perhaps Michael Moore is just as much of an idiot as Ann Coulter? Isn't that possible?
Isn't it possible that a liberal swallows just as much B.S. as a conservative? After all... most liberals once believe John Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia and when they found out it was a lie, said so what?
Isn't it possible that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Barbara Boxer have about as much credibility as the not ready for prime time SNL cast? Isn't it possible that in comparison that George Bush, Condi Rice, John McCain, Rudy Guilianni, and that gang are seen as a better option for at least some clear headed people?
Isn't it possible?
Posted by Coldheart at February 13, 2006 09:54 AMThis isn't "politics as usual" – not even an extreme version of it, not McCarthyism revisited, Reaganism times two, or Nixon in a Stetson hat. There's never been anything like it in American life before: a messianic cult backed by vast corporate power, a massive cadre of religious zealots, a highly disciplined party, an overwhelming media machine and the mammoth force of history's most powerful government – all led by men who "create new realities" out of lies, blood, theft and torment.
Posted by phidipides at February 13, 2006 10:01 AMThey also eat their own if they dare criticize their leader:
The cult of Bush allows no criticism
February 13, 2006
An Outspoken Conservative Loses His Place at the Table By ELISABETH BUMILLER
GREAT FALLS, Va. — What happens if you're a Republican commentator and you write a book critical of President Bush that gets you fired from your job at a conservative think tank?
For starters, no other conservative institution rushes in with an offer for your analytical skills.
"Nobody will touch me," said Bruce Bartlett, author of the forthcoming "Impostor: Why George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." "I think I'm just kind of radioactive at the moment."
Mr. Bartlett, a domestic policy aide at the White House in the Reagan administration and a deputy assistant treasury secretary under the first President Bush, talked last week at his suburban Washington home about his dismissal, his book and a growing disquiet among conservatives about Mr. Bush....
Stalinists tolerate no opposition to the leader or the Party Line.
Coldheart,
The difference is LIB/DEM public policy had been proven by history to provide results so great as to have made this country great. GOP public policy leads to horrible results and very bad things for America.
Now what were you saying about Pelosi?
Sincerely
The Truth
Well, it's just a matter of time before the Asian economies surpass us. Americans are dumb and lazy in comparison. Definitely nowhere near as hard working or innovative.
Californians are protesting a High School exit exam that's about at the 6th-8th grade level. I guess the liberals think folks are entitled to a graduation diploma, even if it's completely meaningless.
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 10:20 AMPerhaps Michael Moore is just as much of an idiot as Ann Coulter? Isn't that possible?
Perhaps it is National Security. Perhaps deep down they do wonder if Senators who were ex anti-war protestors who voted against national defense spending over and over and then voted for the 87 billion beforse voting against it... would make a strong President during a war? Is that possible?
Posted by Coldheart at February 13, 2006 09:54 AM
*****
No, neither of those is possible. Ann Coulter is magnitudes of idiocy worse than Moore. Moore has a point of view. He's biased, but he's fundamentally honest in his research. Coulter is beyond biased...she is a flat-out proven serial liar. If you cannot discern the difference, then fuck you and your retard-level IQ.
Kerry did not vote against defense spending "over and over." You're parrotting Rovian talking point lies, you disingenous little fuckstain. Kerry protested AFTER HE SERVED, you pissant coward-coddler. He had every right to criticize a war that was, if you might recall, LOST. So the answer is no, it is not rational to entrust National Security to chickenhawk cowards who were asleep at the wheel when America was attacked, and who, in response, launched an unnecessary war that is busting the bank and ruining the military.
Christmas in Cambodia? Are you that fatfuck swiftboat traitor John O'Neill? If you are, please pay me a visit. We need to have a little chat.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 10:23 AMCalifornians are protesting a High School exit exam that's about at the 6th-8th grade level. I guess the liberals think folks are entitled to a graduation diploma, even if it's completely meaningless.
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 10:20 AM
*****
Why would you demonize liberals like that? Its a complete logical fallacy. Every liberal I know deeply values educational excellence.
Come on muckster, you're one of the few trolls on here with a functioning brain. Baseless bullshit like that shoves you to the fringe with the Bushista cultists.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 10:31 AMMr Truth...
So... you are saying as an objective matter that the 70's with Jimmy Carter as President and we had Democrats in both the House and the Senate... was good times, huh?
Gas Lines, Hostage embarassments, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, a real and distinct falling behind as a major super power to the USSR?
Them were the days...
Since then, we have elected Republican Presidents for 5 of the 7 terms... the only exception being a fiscally conservative southern Democrat working for 6 of 8 years with a completely Republican congress...
During that time... thanks 100% to Republican initiatives we have cut taxes, reformed welfare, strengthened our military, brought inflation down, brought unemployment down... ended the cold war... all the while Democrats have moaned and groaned about so called scandals, and threw up losers like John Kerry and Walter Mondale as their sacrificial lambs...
Yeah... I can see why you would think Democratic initiatives have worked so well? But of course I could be wrong...
Give me a list of successful Democratic plans (Contract with America issues like balanced budgets that Clinton signed don't count) that have had big impacts over the past 30 years:
just a small list....
Posted by Coldheart at February 13, 2006 10:33 AMColdheart, given that Al Gore won the election and Americans consistently give overwhelming support to liberal policies, your suppositions make no sense.
I also note that the MyDD poll seems to show that the people who are most concerned with national security issues appear not to be Bush voters. Given the disaster Bush has been for national security, that makes sense.
The only question that's left is why Republicans have spent the last several years deliberately trying to ensure that fewer American can vote and that it is impossible to verify the vote. Perhaps the data above is a clue.
Posted by Avedon at February 13, 2006 10:38 AMDuring that time... thanks 100% to Republican initiatives we have cut taxes, reformed welfare, strengthened our military, brought inflation down, brought unemployment down... ended the cold war... all the while Democrats have moaned and groaned about so called scandals, and threw up losers like John Kerry and Walter Mondale as their sacrificial lambs...
Posted by Coldheart at February 13, 2006 10:33 AM
*****
Holy shit. It truly is an amazing thing to see the mind of a cult member at work. Almost surreal. The myopic framing is almost breathtaking to even a casual student of psychology. Is he aware, do you think, that EVERY Republican voted against the Clinton budget that launched the greatest economic expansion in world history? I doubt that he is.
Coldheart should be named Shitbrained. Totally cult-indoctrinated. Seek deprogramming, you lost little bastard.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 10:42 AMPS. I explained this already in "Organizing Principles", but TLC's comment filter won't accept the me dot uk address here or in my URL field. Grump, grump, grump.
Posted by Avedon at February 13, 2006 10:42 AMOff topic but there's no open thread.
Another boneheaded nomination by Bush.
I've actually met this guy that Bush nominated to the Fed Board of Governors. He's clearly where he is because of his wifes family.
Posted by snark at February 13, 2006 10:46 AMWar god dude...
What the fvck are you talking about? Certainly John Kerry serving gives him 'every' right to become a war protester. I didn't question his right. But the American public has just as much right to reject a war-protester as CIC in time of war. It's their right to have that opinion.
The Christmas in Cambodia was actually hammered by several sources and his own campaign even admitted he wasn't there... You are like that Japanese soldier that is stranded on a desert island, still fighing WWII long after his commander surrendered.
His own record... dating back for several terms was one of voting against defense spending and intelligence spending... Only over the past few years when he started thinking about runnign for President did he change his tune. It's all pubic record.
Posted by Coldheart at February 13, 2006 10:48 AMLast 30 years? A list of sucessful Democratic initiatives. (and no... Contract for America initiatives signed by Clinton don't count)
Still looking for a list, folks?
Posted by Coldheart at February 13, 2006 11:03 AMColdfuck,
I assume when you cite to "sources," they will be the likes of Limbaugh, Bozell, Coulter, Malkin, et al. Apparently, those are legitimate sources to you. Frankly, I don't give a fuck when Kerry was in Cambodia. But I do know that fatass John O'Neil, who lambasted Kerry for his Cambodia faux pas, was caught in a lie, on a Nixon-era tape, claiming that he had been there too while simultaneously during the 2004 campaign he claimed none of them had ever been there. In any event, who gives a shit. Only fucking cultists like you would obsess over Kerry's misstatements while your president lies like a fucking rug, repeatedly, about issues of huge import.
You pricks really are unbelievable. You raise unholy hell about minor misstatements of "liberals" yet excuse outright lies and deception of enormous import by "conservatives."
Fuck you and your bullshit, dishonest, dishonorable way of life.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 11:05 AMCodbrain, your rendition of American history posted at 10:33 is so fundamentally biased, inaccurate and faulty that "dialogue" would be pointless. Pearls before swine, and all that.
You need to get off the Right Wing internet shit-troughs that you gorge yourself on, and read some actual books (written by real professors) about recent American political and economic history, because you're one indoctrinated, ignorant GOP clown!
Or not, because you sound rather satisfied with your cast-in-stone opinions. No need to change now, what with all the GOP successes staring us in the face.
Posted by euzoius at February 13, 2006 11:22 AM...your rendition of American history posted at 10:33 is so fundamentally biased, inaccurate and faulty that "dialogue" would be pointless.
That about says it all right there.
I believe Coldheart signed a do not resuscitate order before drinking the koolaid.
Posted by snark at February 13, 2006 11:28 AMI love the fact that the wrong-wingers love to assert 'incontrovertable' factoids, and then neglect to include anything resembling a verifiable link so that we can see for ourselves that they are as correct as the claim to be!
Maybe we progessives should, as one wrong-winger suggested about me the other day, 'lay our hands upon the monitor and simply channel the reality of their dementia?' It might work better than the Bu$hco crystal balls they left us!
Posted by pessimist at February 13, 2006 11:37 AMHi...I'm the Dog of Whine and here is what I have to say:
"F-word"...."F-word"....Rumsfeld's anus....Cheney's penis....I'll pee on your grave...
....ummm....uh....errr.....shoot.....I guess that's all there is!
Posted by dipshit at February 13, 2006 11:37 AMI am so thankful that coldheart let us see inside his brain and clearly prove pessimist's point. coldheart proved he falls for every deception and lie that the republicans voices. coldheart makes the point better than pessimist.
strong on national security to the cult this means being willing to spend any amount of treausury revenue to provide handouts to the special interest. It has noting to do with slacking on vacation before the U.S. was hit with the worst assualt on U.S. mainland soil in history and destroying the military with an illegal invasion to line the pockets of special interest. What happen to national missile defense?
social conservatism and same sex marriage the republicans want the davids to focus on social conservatism because they have no plans to protect U.S public public interest by addressing issues like the healthcare system (that creates a major disadvantage to U.S. workers competing in a global economy), spiraling energy cost, massive federal deficits, massive trade imbalances, an aging population and crumbling infrastructure.
Posted by smooth at February 13, 2006 11:38 AM"when the lies keep piling up higher and deeper"
Just which lies were those?
Posted by dipshit at February 13, 2006 11:43 AMstill waiting for that list...
all the personal insults or attacks on the GOP in the world don't make for a list of successful initiatives.
Posted by Coldheart at February 13, 2006 11:59 AMWhy would you demonize liberals like that? Its a complete logical fallacy. Every liberal I know deeply values educational excellence.
Do you support an exit exam, God of War? Such that if kids can't pass it, they don't graduate?
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 12:01 PMOh shit, a Cheney admirer said "shoot"
Run for your lives!!!!
Posted by Sharon at February 13, 2006 12:06 PMCalifornians are protesting a High School exit exam that's about at the 6th-8th grade level. I guess the liberals think folks are entitled to a graduation diploma, even if it's completely meaningless.
Correction:
Californians are protesting the universal application of a single, standard exit exam -- even to those like some special ed students who will probably never reach a 6th or 8th grade level -- for the purpose of being able to reprimand "bad" schools, withold funding and funnel federal money to parochial and private schools. (See also general opposition to "school vouchers" by said group.)
That's the key to GOP sliming -- over-simplify the argument to demonize the opposition.
Posted by Kaleefornian at February 13, 2006 12:09 PMGee, didn't we all go through this predictable winger 50 state spin just say on another thread yesterday or was it the day before. And the most predictable winger strategy pulled out in a diversionary reaction was the off topic "challenge" that CHT pulled out of his butt.
That post with "challenge" was all just so fucking predictable. Just like the next one that will be coming if no one responds to it that will no doubt say something to the effect (and I'm paraphrasing) "You hate-filled liberals/leftists (is hate-filled and leftists/liberals redundant?) are all the same, and no one took up my challenge because you all know what I say is factual, therefore you can't handle the truth and I win".
CHT, spare us all, unlike you we weren't born on the turnip truck yesterday and have all been here and been subjected to the same drivel and idiotic rantings/tactics at this site before. We have provided well sourced facts that fly in the face of rantings like your own, and to no avail the facts are ignored, the talking points repeated day after day visa via (*sic) crappy and his gang of Bush loyalists. Your side doesn't want facts or debate for that matter. Your side only wants to divide, disrupt, incite, and fuel hatred and anger. You don't want respectful debate, you don't want logic or dissent you want divisiveness and anger, because that justifies your purpose and is what you thrive on and what drives your party.
The real reason that most people here won't take you up on your bogus challenge isn't because we can't, it's because we choose not to any longer. It's like trying to discuss rocket scientry with a 3 year old, there just is no reason to do it.
Posted by emal at February 13, 2006 12:18 PMMuck,
Don't have any children do you? These tests are a bunch of crap. Having tests be the "be all" is what is destroying education. Teachers don't teach anything than those stupid tests you love so much.
There's a reason the parents are protesting this crap and it isn't because they are lazy. Education is a many year process but only idiotic and lazy conservatives want to boil it all down to one test.
What a tool you are.
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 13, 2006 12:36 PMWhy would you demonize liberals like that? Its a complete logical fallacy. Every liberal I know deeply values educational excellence.
Do you support an exit exam, God of War? Such that if kids can't pass it, they don't graduate?
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 12:01 PM
*****
I support the concept of basic aptitude tests. I think an exit exam in practice, might have the unintended consequence of "teaching to the test," so that students wouldn't receive an education but rather a four-year exam-prep. Of course I agree with the concept of graduation being predicated on having attained certain levels of aptitude in important areas, so I suppose if you could construct an exit exam that fulfilled that purpose, I would support that idea.
Of course if it takes to the end of one's high school curriculum to discover via an exit exam that one has failed to grasp basic educational concepts, I think there are bigger problems than performance aptitude on one test.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 12:38 PMHonestly, I don't know why folks even try to talk to the Bush cultists any more. They are a lost, sad cause. I am a liberal, but at this point would welcome a conservative administration. Anybody, left or right, with functioning brain, who cannot see the damage done in the last 5 years, and the sheer cynicism and dishonesty of this regime, may deserve our sympathy, but not out respect.
Posted by Rob G at February 13, 2006 12:41 PMAnybody, left or right, with functioning brain, who cannot see the damage done in the last 5 years, and the sheer cynicism and dishonesty of this regime, may deserve our sympathy, but not out respect.
Posted by Rob G at February 13, 2006 12:41 PM
*****
They deserve neither. They are complicit in a crime against America.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 12:53 PMAgainst the world, O Bellicose One.
199.43.2.146
Hamilton, Bermuda
Yeah, "teaching to the test." That's a laugher. Isn't that the goal? You study math, and then take a math test. You study history, then take a history test.
We learn by repetition.
If a test asks "Name the states in the US," I'd hope that teachers were "teaching to the test" and giving students the names of the US states during normal classroom time. Don't you?
Doesn't it seem ridiculous to walk into a History Classroom and be handed a Geometry test? "Well, we don't believe in teaching to the test, and I know we've studied history but it'd be wrong to give you a history exam, so I hope you know the pythagorean theorem."
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 01:12 PMWe learn by repetition.
So do rats.
What's your point?
Posted by snark at February 13, 2006 01:24 PMColdheart, you dumbfuck, the only reason there may be a larger list of successful republicans initiatives is because they continually bend over for the corporations to have a nice, loose target, where most democrats still have the decency to fight the corporate rape machine. so fuck off, and when china and the rest of the asian economies surpass america's i will be grateful, because then maybe the ignorant fucks in this country will understand the difference between being blindly supportive of fascism and imperialism and what life is truly about.
sit on your thumb and rotate fool.
Posted by lonemess at February 13, 2006 01:34 PMKill 'em with kindness.
Be positive!
We want victory in Iraq!
We want our boys home safe!
We want a country safe from terrorism!
We think all Americans should have an education!
We think all men are created equal!
We think the government should respond as quickly as possible to ANY disaster!
WE all agree! Right!
(come on... think Beach Blanket Bingo--- BIG SMILE)
they respond- but the democrats don't have any direction...
You can say... sure they do! and repeat the platitudes to the multitudes... they LOVE IT! (again BIG SMILE)
Posted by Josh at February 13, 2006 01:53 PMDoesn't it seem ridiculous to walk into a History Classroom and be handed a Geometry test? … Posted by muckdogYou have so many straw man arguments, you are a fire hazard. Teaching to the test doesn't refer to teaching curriculum material.
... some teachers have begun to employ test preparation practices that are clearly not in the best interest of children. These activities may include relentless drilling on test content, eliminating important curricular content not covered by the test, and providing interminably long practice session that incorporates actual items from these high-stakes standardized tests (Popham, 2000). There have even been documented cases in the United States where teachers and administrators had given students the answers to standardized reading and mathematics questions (Goodnough, 1999). These cases of improper behavior in New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio and Connecticut were a direct result of increased pressure on schools that resulted from public rankings (Simner, 2000).
Yeah, "teaching to the test." That's a laugher. Isn't that the goal? You study math, and then take a math test. You study history, then take a history test.
We learn by repetition.
If a test asks "Name the states in the US," I'd hope that teachers were "teaching to the test" and giving students the names of the US states during normal classroom time. Don't you?
Doesn't it seem ridiculous to walk into a History Classroom and be handed a Geometry test? "Well, we don't believe in teaching to the test, and I know we've studied history but it'd be wrong to give you a history exam, so I hope you know the pythagorean theorem."
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 01:12 PM
*****
Take your strawmen and burn them.
I've got a doctorate and wicked credentials, so you might want to stand down, son. I've taken hundreds of courses and dozens of entrance/exit tests. For a course, you master specific material and develop a genuine understanding and expertise. The course exams reflect your actual understanding. For a standardized entrance/exit exam, you study for specifically tested criteria, often out of a study guide. You can bet your ass that if schools are subject to punishment for standardized test scores, they will shift focus to rote memorization to the detriment of critical and in-depth thinking. That's not theory, that's what actually happens.
The problem with you cons is that you cannot engage in an honest debate. Instead of dealing with actual issues that would be raised, you create strawmen and then act as if we should be impressed. Not the case here. I'm wholly unimpressed.
Posted by God Of War at February 13, 2006 02:06 PMbut bush's emphasis on standardized tests allows him to have teachers limit the curriculum and ignore important parts of a well rounded education and thus have the gop control the education of american students.
Posted by lonemess at February 13, 2006 02:07 PMMike,
Muckdog doesn't know all that because his teachers didn't repeat it to him over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Obviously someone did teach him who people from specific economic groups voted for in the 2004 elections because he likes to repeat those statistics over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Because we learn by repetition. Can't repeat that enough.
Posted by snark at February 13, 2006 02:09 PM...we have elected Republican Presidents for 5 of the 7 terms....Posted by ColdheartHere's the data table comparing the American economy during Republican vs Democratic administrations, thanks to eriposte.
Republicans are fond of claiming that they are responsible for budget surpluses during the Clinton administration (they're not) but don't acknowledge they bear responsibility for the huge deficits of the Bush term.
Because we learn by repetition. Can't repeat that enough. Posted by snarkYeah, dawg. After the third time, I learned not to go swimming with sharks and not to hang with Republicans. Posted by Mike at February 13, 2006 02:15 PM
Guffaw. Then why do most folks, and probably including yourselves, cram for exams?
Well, I'm all for cancelling the exit exam to be honest. Let the liberals have their way on this one. There just are a bunch of kids in the US who won't make it because they make a choice not to study. The more time we spend on kids who aren't going to make it, detracts from time spent on those kids who do want to succeed.
Let the employers sort 'em out during the hiring interviews.
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 02:26 PMMan, muck you truly are a moron aren't you? I hope for heaven's sake that you stay out making any education decisions. LOl, you think that taking tests in a class are the same thing as the test you are describing? You truly are a nut case. By your own standards, skip high school and just take a prep class for the SAT. Certainly, all that matters is passing that one test, right?
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 13, 2006 02:35 PMGuffaw. Then why do most folks, and probably including yourselves, cram for exams?
That's exactly the argument against standardized tests. Teachers cram rote lessons down the kids throats in prep for the standardized tests for fear that they will lose funding if the students don't perform like trained animals. Most of the crammed info is promptly forgotten. Or worse, basically useless to any employer looking for people with real skills, not just brains full of factoids.
Let the employers sort 'em out during the hiring interviews.
Why not just conduct exit interviews for high schoolers?
That's an examination that could examine what each individual actually knows and what their ability to communicate that knowledge is to others in a real life setting. How about we evaluate people instead of evaluating the answers they write down on a piece of paper?
Posted by snark at February 13, 2006 02:38 PMWhy do GOP'ers hate America? Hmmm.....does that mean Al Gore switched over?
If you dullards don't get the joke, google "Gore remarks Saudi Arabia."
Posted by dipshit at February 13, 2006 03:11 PMGuffaw. Then why do most folks, and probably including yourselves, cram for exams?
What I remember from school is that if you crammed for an exam, you forgot all of that info almost immediately after the test.
Posted by ann at February 13, 2006 03:12 PMWhat a thing to say... From drudge(sorry):
"SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, February 13, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has approved a deal in which a United Arab Emirates company would operate six major ports in the United States..."
Yeah, "teaching to the test." That's a laugher. Isn't that the goal? You study math, and then take a math test. You study history, then take a history test.
In this instance "teaching to the test" means giving the kids the answers to test items by focusing on those test items exclusively in class. You think this somehow implies a broad understanding of the content area. It does not. It simply allows someone to quantify an outcome of some sort.
It's your type who thinks that education can be based on a business model with X input leading to Y outcomes, and that thinking drives this entire NCLB debacle. What about inspiration? Aspiration? Owing to NCLB, the state I'm in has art and music in only half of the schools. Schools are considering dumping Social Studies. Why? Science and Math are the focus of NCLB. Has it been successful? Nope.
Coldheart
I'm coming back for you, jackoff. But I first need to watch the news to see what your Fuhrer fucked-up today. Sieg Heil!
Posted by phidipides at February 13, 2006 03:24 PMPuppyboy,
In the state I live we already have loads of state mandated testing from grades 3-10. Grade 10 you must pass and you get 3 tries to do so. It's not like cramming puppyboy. Here's a typical example of what I am talking about below.
Now don't get me wrong I am all for some testing, but it is getting ridiculous, there is too much. For example in Grade 4, there is a one day long essay test. Then several weeks later there are 3 days of ELA/reading multiple choice with some short answer-essays. Then a week after that 3 days of math testing, multiple choice and several word problems where you have to show your work. Now I am supportive of the idea, and my own children have/are taking these tests successfully. But that series of testing takes away 2.5 weeks from general instructional time... Way too much testing time for a 9/10 year old child as well as kids in the older grades. It can be intense for these kids, especially those that struggle with it.
Now, the state is adding subjects to these mandated ELA/writing/math tests such as history and science and technology. Way too much time is being spent testing.
Other things to consider the drop out rate is increasing in certain areas of the state and that is a concern...kids are leaving school, not good imho. There have been stories of highly talented students who are struggling to pass the test yet have some amazing credentials/accomplishments. Plus, guess what, private schools kids don't have to take those tests to graduate, only public schools.
I have no problem with testing, but only if done in moderation and only if done with the idea it is not the sole requirement for graduation, but perhaps done as percentage of what a student needs in order to obtain a diploma.
*******
dipshit, ...google asshole and click I'm feeling lucky...really do it, created especially for the likes of people like you I think.
Posted by emal at February 13, 2006 03:33 PM
They say Bush's core who'll stand by him is around 25%, isn't it. Here's the explanation:
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
25%? Amazingly, that is the percentage of Americans who think that the sun orbits the Earth. Coincidence? I report, you decide.
Posted by Rob G at February 13, 2006 04:08 PMIs is possible for a Democrat (not one running for reelection) to win in a two-way race for President? It has not happened in a very long time, and electoral votes keep moving to the South and West and away from New England and new York. Florida is projected to eventually be the third largest state in electoral votes (after California and Texas). Didn't Bush carry Florida by 1 million votes in 2004? Everybody who is moving there is doing so partly to avoid high taxes (in the Northeast Blue States, Ohio, etc.). How will a Democrat ever carry Florida again?
Posted by Stats at February 13, 2006 04:10 PMBush's emphasis on standardized tests also allows his brother Neil to make money. It's easy to forget the amazing fact that Neil may actually have outdone George thru the years when it comes to socking away unearned bucks thru leveraging the family name.
Funny - conservatives profess a belief in meritocracy. Or is that only when race is the topic?
Posted by OkieByAccident at February 13, 2006 04:14 PMColdheart, you dumbfuck, the only reason there may be a larger list of successful republicans initiatives is because they continually bend over for the corporations
Well hell, that's where I was going to start.
Let's start with Nixon: extended the war as election year politics causing the deaths of thousands of American servicemen. Cut jobs training programs. Fiddled while OPEC cut oil supplies. High inflation and wage and price controls (you know, all that liberal economic policy you fear). We all know Watergate. Republicans finally having enough of a lawless president.
Ford? Worthless dick.
Reagan: Where does one start? VooDoo economics anyone? Massive inflation. Massive debt. Iran-Contra. GM gets to pay 5% taxes on income. No wage growth, and in fact the value of the dollar dropped by about 1/3rd. The rush to two-earner incomes to pay the bills. Massive tax incentives for corporations to incorporate off-shore and avoid corporate taxes. More tax burden placed on the middle class. For every dollar in wage increases for the middle class, the wealthy get $186 dollars.
Bush I: Refer to Ford.
Bush II: WMD's...uh, Saddam connected to terrorists...uh, Saddam is a bad man...uh, uh, bringing the toweleads democracy! Afghanistan? Fuck Osama, we need oil (and that worked well, eh?). Prescription reform for the elderly (works like super glue in your transmission). Cut education funding. Cut funding to elderly. Cut funding to pregnant women. Cut funding to children. Promised funding to veterans, but cut the funds instead. Supports dictators of all stripes. (How much more of this do you need. I'm barely scatching the surface.) Retrenched from America's stand against torture and support for human rights. Violates duty to defend the constitution. $1 trillion dollars in corporate welfare last year alone. Massive fucking deficits to fund no bid contracts. The most massive and expensive increase in Federal programs in American history, all of which goes to incompetent agencies devised by morons and staffed by fools. For every dollar in middle class wage increases the wealthy get $18,600.
Posted by phidipides at February 13, 2006 05:07 PMWith regard to Fat Al Gore's BS comments regarding the "mistreatment" of Arabs by the US gov't, does not the fat idiot realize where he was when he said them?
Besides pandering to Steve's favorite group, Al Qaeda, Fat Albert made these comments in a country where they kill girls who were raped and slaughter individuals who are homosexual.
Wow...to think that moron Fat Albert lost Florida by just a few hundred votes!
Posted by dipshit at February 13, 2006 05:11 PMColdheart,
Good to see you out here. I see you made quite a splash today. The liberals are supposed to be ignoring us "trolls" but they can't help themselves.
Someone asked earlier what I meant when I indicated liberals "don't get it". Where to begin?
1 - they don't get that they LOST the last 2 Presidential elections (they weren't stolen) and the last mid-term election because the Amercian people don't identify with the idelogy of the left in the post 911 world. The can keep coming up with excuses all day long but it won't help them regain their power
2 - they don't get that they look like foolish little children with their constant harping about what an evil, mean person Bush is (Why he's worse than OBL).
3 - they don't get that to win elections, you have to do more than just oppose. You have to persuade people with policy ideas. The yahve none. When are we going to hear their ideas for this year's mid-term elections? They keep saying they will have one. Don't hold your breath.
4 - they don't get that this Administration that they label as stupid and incompetent (Except when he's steering Hurricanes into NO) is running intellectual rings around them. Frankly it's not hard.
5 - they don't get that they are VERY weak on the National Security issue and that if they make the election about that, then they will lose, BIG.
I could go on but I'll leave it there.
Posted by David at February 13, 2006 05:23 PMGood evening all,
I took a quick read of all the posts and the bulk of the thread seems to concern "coldheart" wanting to see a list of "Democratic intiatives" as if that were the yardstick of the current debate over the future of this country. Producing a list of "Democratic initiatives" is disingenuous in the extreme when all the current gang of corporate thugs running the country offers in the way of, say, economic policy, is repeated regressive tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting programs that benefit the middle-class; when all the current group of warmongers offers in the way of foreign policy is continued, permanent WAR and continued expansion of the military budget. First, "coldheart" (apt name) has to show how ANY of the fiddler-in-chief's "policies" has contributed ANYTHING to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which seems such a quaint phrase in this degraded, degenerate empire.
Best,
Bob
Maybe we should have entrance exams instead. So that you can't get in unless you show the required proficiency. This way, the teachers would be able to teach to those who are ready, while those who need remedial help could get that and try the entrance exam next year.
Posted by muckdog at February 13, 2006 05:39 PMMuck,
The more "liberal" states do something similar to what you are suggesting. Testing is used a tool to find out the deficiencies that students have rather than being the end all and be all that you are suggesting.
I like your idea muck - provided that anyone who wishes to run for any elective office can pass such a test!
Posted by pessimist at February 13, 2006 06:12 PMWell Dipshit,
As far as I know, Al hasn't been playing kissy face and holding hands with the Saudi's like your buddy and idiot Bush. Our foreign policy is currently being run by Bandar Bush and morons like you have no problem with it.
Yeah, "teaching to the test." That's a laugher. Isn't that the goal? You study math, and then take a math test. You study history, then take a history test.
Brazenly obvious that Muckprick doesn't have kids (at least none in public schools) and that he has never had more than a passing conversation with a public school teacher.
There is a world of difference between educating and teaching to the test.
The more time we spend on kids who aren't going to make it, detracts from time spent on those kids who do want to succeed.
Yeah, fuck the slow lazy ones. Who needs 'em.
What stunning ignorance and misunderstanding of how economic policies that you support directly affects how children are taught in this country. I'd be happy to put you in touch with one or two people who do research on how kids actually learn.
Yet another in a myriad of examples where Muck's world is only about 3 feet in diameter. And just when I thought that you couldn't become any more vile.
Posted by Simp at February 13, 2006 06:28 PMBack to GOPpers, and their hatred. I think they're afraid, though I'm not sure they know what scares them. This is the single most important thing they overlook, the national debt. If they can rationalize the truth that hops off of that graph, they can overlook anything.
I personally think they are afraid of "us." Not something that we'll do to the government. I think they are afraid we'll do something that will make them have to live with us - us being liberals, african americans, hispanics, gays, street people, etc. It has to be racism that drives such intense denial of what Bu$hCo is doing to the country. Just has to be...
Posted by Mickey at February 13, 2006 06:29 PMProducing a list of "Democratic initiatives" is disingenuous in the extreme
But easy to do...
Not breaking the law. (Domestic surveilance -- comms)
Not breaking the law. (Domestic surveilance)
Not breaking the law. (Burning intel agents)
Not breaking the law. (Agressive war)
Not breaking the law. (Torture)
Hey, it's a start.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at February 13, 2006 06:48 PM"we'll do something that will make them have to live with us - us being liberals, african americans, hispanics, gays,"
Yeah...just like we hate Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, Rod Paige, Elaine Chao, Alberto Gonzales,Norman Mineta, Alphonso Johnson etc, etc, etc....
Damn...it's another Rovian plot: we'll prove how much we hate minorities by promoting them to some of the highest profile and most powerful positions in the world. Mua..ah...ah...ah..ah
Posted by dipshit at February 13, 2006 06:49 PMColdheart,
Liberals made this country great.
Liberals freed the slaves.
Liberals got women the right to vote.
Liberals got us civil rights.
Liberals fought for the worker protections that created the great American middle class.
Liberal ruled the congrss for the middle 60 years of the 20 century, a time when the United States came to lead the world.
...and conservatives fought them every step of the way.
And Carters public policy was good. Back then we were the worlds biggest creditor nation. Then very quickly under Reagan we became the world biggest debtor nation. During Carters time OPEC tried to screw us (but those are BushCo's buddies, not any friends of the Dems) and there was the start of the Islamic revolution in Iran (again thanks the Shah who was installed and supported by GOP pres with daddy Bush running the CIA).
But I think the Dem model as all the Dems thought it should be in 1993 is especially instructive. I think a comparison of Clintons terms with the 12 years before and the years since is all anybody really needs to looks at.
After 12 years of the trickle down economic, voodoo doodoo Reagan/GOP garbage, Clinton got elected on the slogan "It's the economy stupid"
Record deficits, slow growth, general misery. That's what GOP policy brings.
In 1993 the Dems set out a strategy of deficit reduction, targeted tax cuts in sectors and segments that would spur econmonic growth, huge government investment in R&D and technological advancement for the United States, more investment in education (to keep us ahead in the world), environmental protection, foreign policy that had most of the world loving us and wanting to be like us and buying our Levis and Big Macs etc, etc, etc.
It worked brilliantly well. It set us on the greatest economic expansion in the history of our republic. This economic/tax/regulatory/fiscal package was called "THE DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 1993" Every Rebulican in congress voted against it. But alas it produced. Consider it:
--created 23 million news jobs
--eliminated the federal budget deficit and created a surplus in the hundred of billions and projected into the trillions in the next five years.
--actually enabled us to pay down the national debt.
--had real wage growth going through the roof
--had GDP growth going throught the roof.
--had consumer and business confidence at record highs.
--had us with a monsterous technological and biotec competitive advantage over the rest of the world.
-- saw the Dow go from 3500 to 10,500.
--had the United States with favoribility ratings in MUSLIN COUNTRIES IN THE HIGH 70'S AND 80'S, not to mention Europe, Asia, and S America. Clinton was a rock star and the world loved the United States.
Then we let the GOP get back in charge. Bush Jr's first term? ZERO JOB CREATION. ZERO GROWTH IN THE DOW. RECORD BUDGET DEFICITS.. THE WORLD HATING OUR GUTS. MASSIVE TERRORIST ATTACKS. VIETNAM LIKE QUAMIRES IN COUNTRIES THAT WERE NO TREAT TO US.. I could go on all day, but as you can see GOP policy has clearly been condemned to the trash heap of history while Dem public policy works very well for America.
Only our enemies would vote for the results GOP policy brings. What's your problem?
Posted by The Truth at February 13, 2006 06:56 PM"Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, Rod Paige, Elaine Chao, Alberto Gonzales,Norman Mineta, Alphonso Johnson" are all examples of blind Bush loyalists, thanks.
If only Powell had done the courageous thing- the moral thing- and resigned in protest rather than be the first of what is turning out to be a long line of kool-aid drinkers with his grotesque recitation of lies at the UN we might not be in the mess in Iraq.
- Bob
Posted by at February 13, 2006 06:58 PMHey people. Anybody want to play?
Posted by Bagley at February 13, 2006 07:01 PM