Board of education claims intellectual ownership of pupils' school work... ehh what??

[jmervyn]

Call it a new year's resolution.

Those are made to be broken, after all.

Credibility in what sense? Do we agree that 2 and 2 make 4? Does my saying it make it less so?

Claiming the label of "Anarchist" without actually wanting the results of anarchy. Similar to when self-styled Communists and Socialists imagine themselves as being the ones in the Politburo/Party who would actually make the decisions and can except themselves from the results.

You live in the richest society on earth, which has made the greatest advances humanity has ever known. Why do you want it <all> ripped down?

You are in one of the safest environments humanity has seen over the ages, particularly given the perils seen elsewhere during the 20th Century. Yet you deride me for thinking that environment and your right to partake of it is worth protecting with my life. Is that supposed to fill me with admiration?

You imagine a no-rules society would somehow be superior to that which currently exists. Have you ever actually lived in a no-rules society? Have you ever lived near one? Have you ever been in a war zone or a collapsed state?

Defend what? I'm fairly certain you and I agree on the issue of government-run healthcare, so it seemed like a good place to start and work backwards form there. I wasn't looking for a dissertation or anything; just a quick list off the top of your head.

I prefer to keep the stumps at the bottom of your legs smouldering in the hot coals, but thanks for clarifying.

I already referred to Stossel's bet regarding Gov't intervention; that's easily enough for purposes of that discussion.

I'm apparently far more of a realist than you - in point of fact, I tend to go with instinctual judgement plus experience rather than pure book theory. If you reject Stossel's bet, then look at it this way - both manufacturing and software development operations perform far more efficiently when decision-making power is placed in the hands of the lowest denominator, hopefully those of the drill press operator himself. Likewise, military operations are generally far more successful when the lowest-level unit has a clear sense of purpose and the ability to make their own decisions. Money operates along the same principle - I recently heard it said that we should think of money as an award which we give others depending on how much we value their goods or services.

Money is power cannot be overstated, though obviously devaluing money is an underhanded way of stealing power from others. Your claimed Anarchist belief effectively removes the very potential for a stable market which allows money to function properly and fairly.

EDIT - Steve ninja'ed me, and I don't have time to respond right now.

[Stevinator]

EDIT - Steve ninja'ed me, and I don't have time to respond right now.

no worries...the thread is not going anywhere.

I notice you went from kinda cranky before valentines day to now being concerned with post-timing-etiquette. My thanks to mrs jmerv, for whatever she got you.

[SaroDarksbane]

Claiming the label of "Anarchist" without actually wanting the results of anarchy.

I'm sure we disagree on the results of anarchy too, so in that respect you are correct: I am certain I do not want whatever it is you believe the results of anarchy are.

You live in the richest society on earth, which has made the greatest advances humanity has ever known. Why do you want it <all> ripped down?

A parasite that starts too big will kill its host. We're the richest, most productive society on the planet because we started with an extremely small parasite. As the host grows, however, so does the parasitic state, which has finally brought us to where we are today. You want to shrink the parasite down to a more manageable level. While admirable (although I would obviously go a little farther), any gains you make only give the parasite more to feed off of.

Money operates along the same principle - I recently heard it said that we should think of money as an award which we give others depending on how much we value their goods or services.

Or to put it another way: in a free market, profits are your reward for producing the things that other people want.

How does the state claim its "profits"? Through production and peaceful, voluntary trade?

EDIT:

Also, and slightly more on topic, I will note that Obama's SotU address made it clear that he would love to find a way to get kids into state-run schools at an even earlier age, if possible. Kids were previously spending up to 6 years with their parents before being handed over to the state for systematic indoctrination. Unacceptable in this day and age . . .

[jmervyn]

Please quote where that is, because i missed it, and all that happy talk is making me want to puke.

I had to say, that's about the most long-winded pile of drivel I've attempted to read in quite some time. How is repeating slurs about the GOP a Party platform?

Here's the closest I can come at a glance -
"These are not permanent fixes. Only Congress can provide a permanent, comprehensive solution. But these are steps in the right direction. President Obama and the Democratic Party stand for comprehensive immigration reform that intelligently prioritizes our country's security and economic needs, while Mitt Romney and the Republicans have opposed commonsense reforms and pandered to the far right."

Results seem to say otherwise. Red=GOP

Remind me to teach you the meaning of the word "sudden" sometime, preferably with a 2'*4'.


EDIT GRR - AceofSpades broke the link again.

Both parties do, its absurd that you think only one does.

Oh, well, that's a relief then. Remind me how many times G.W.Bush conducted political rallies in churches again? Hey, maybe the next time a GOP stalwart is buried we can turn it into a political rah-rah like Wellstone's.

I apparently can't fix your bias aside from use of that 2'*4'.

I'll grant you that there are many Black Democrats that use an inverse racist rhetoric to garner votes.

I'm sure that Mia Love, Allen West, and even Michael Steele were recipients of similar vote benefits in your diseased, cancerous little universe, so that's all good.

I am disagreeing that democrats use the type of racism you're accusing them of. It's not the Dems that generate headlines like these:

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog...heir-own-words
Same story. different source
http://www.katv.com/story/19753982/r...y-arkansas-rep

You presume to lecture me on Democrat racism. That's incredibly hilarious.

You cite an identical story twice because of precisely what I'm referring to. You've never heard anything said by Byrd, or by Al Gore Sr. for that matter, because it wasn't a net positive for the Democrats. Certainly nothing by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, or probably by Louis Farrakhan. I'd bet you didn't pay any attention to the vile racism against Nikki Haley except when it was from the mouth of her Republican rival, right? Or when Michael Steele had Oreo cookies thrown on stage? When cartoons of Condoleezza Rice made the rounds? Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell a "House Negro"?

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican until the day he died. I suppose James Earl Ray, GOP stalwart and certainly not Wallace supporter, didn't really kill him?

I can't say i understand what that means. "feeling black"? WTF?!

Race as a state of mind. In other words, everyone can be mentally black and be discriminated against. I'll find the link though I posted it previously.

(another kooky conspiracy theory)

Kooky because you don't like it or it shames you somehow... yawn.

Are you contending that she didn't get it because she was white (or non-black)?

Precisely.

YOu really do bring up the kardashans a lot. i think you're developing an fixation.

The Kardashians are a symptom; The Beatles were part of the disease.

It's also a bit weird that you're proud of her for it when you hold the...positions that you do on that topic. I feel like I missed a punchline or something.

Well, you certainly missed SOMETHING. That's because in your tiny, brittle mental framework I'm a horrific bigot and homophobe. Or maybe it was homophone.

Ann's not pro-queer marriage any more than I am. She's pro-queer, as I am.

*groan, yes, Google's algorithm is a vast left wing conspiracy. But don't blame Larry and Sergey, it was the contrails that made them do it.

Yup, just like you; the only facts worth considering are those that support your own biases, and not anything else. Go watch Jon Stewart and laugh at all your imagined GOP opponents.

Just don't ask me why you can't get a job, why gas has been holding over $4/gal, and why your taxes are going so high.

Actually, I think you can spell it couple ways,

Arabic words are like that.

If you think the devil made you kill someone, you're crazy, and I would treat you as such.

How do you know this? You claimed agnosticism, not militant Atheism. A claim of outside influence remains a claim of outside influence, whether Satan, Prozac, or hot coffee. Coulter's point is that it shouldn't matter, and that any time the justice system starts divining motive it can no longer be considered actual justice.

That's not a crime, in my mind.

Cough, cough. Retch. PUKE...

Obama is NOT my boss.

Sez you. Heck, Rock thinks he's Yo DADDY!

If women can't meet the physical requirements, then they don't get those jobs. That's not discrimination, that's life.

Patently not the case. I've personally encountered this discrimination multiple times, and female standards are radically different from male standards.


You voted for Rahm. Embrace the fail.

[Stevinator]

I had to say, that's about the most long-winded pile of drivel I've attempted to read in quite some time. How is repeating slurs about the GOP a Party platform?

Here's the closest I can come at a glance -
"These are not permanent fixes. Only Congress can provide a permanent, comprehensive solution. But these are steps in the right direction. President Obama and the Democratic Party stand for comprehensive immigration reform that intelligently prioritizes our country's security and economic needs, while Mitt Romney and the Republicans have opposed commonsense reforms and pandered to the far right."

I'm sorry you felt you had to read that blather. I was being rhetorical, because there's obviously nothing in there that's going to be racist.

Remind me to teach you the meaning of the word "sudden" sometime, preferably with a 2'*4'.

that's fair. it wasn't "sudden", but it did happen.

Oh, well, that's a relief then. Remind me how many times G.W.Bush conducted political rallies in churches again? Hey, maybe the next time a GOP stalwart is buried we can turn it into a political rah-rah like Wellstone's.

Are you saying that Dubya's born again status did not affect the election? i disagree. He certainly garnered a lot of support from religious folks.

And i still voted for him. Whoops! Not that it mattered, IL is forever blue, because more and more people die everyday, so the Democrats are always gaining votes.

You cite an identical story twice because of precisely what I'm referring to. You've never heard anything said by Byrd, or by Al Gore Sr. for that matter, because it wasn't a net positive for the Democrats. Certainly nothing by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, or probably by Louis Farrakhan. I'd bet you didn't pay any attention to the vile racism against Nikki Haley except when it was from the mouth of her Republican rival, right? Or when Michael Steele had Oreo cookies thrown on stage? When cartoons of Condoleezza Rice made the rounds? Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell a "House Negro"?

I thinkit's safe to say that racial politics still exist, and flames are fanned whenever it suits whomever it suits. I think we'd agree that we'd rather that stopped.

BTW, i thought the Steele thing was blown well out of proportion--like it happened once and he said it was half the audience. Too bad because I kinda liked how he just called it like he saw it.

As for condoleeza, I was interested in her potentially running, because i'd like to know more about where she stood on things. If I remember, she didn't run because she was pro-choice, so she would never have made it through the primaries. Well, that and she worked for Bush 2.

The Kardashians are a symptom; The Beatles were part of the disease.

lol, that's not serious, is it?

Well, you certainly missed SOMETHING. That's because in your tiny, brittle mental framework I'm a horrific bigot and homophobe. Or maybe it was homophone.

totally forgot about the homophone. did you ever find out who called you that?

Ann's not pro-queer marriage any more than I am. She's pro-queer, as I am.

What is that supposed to mean?

How do you know this? You claimed agnosticism, not militant Atheism. A claim of outside influence remains a claim of outside influence, whether Satan, Prozac, or hot coffee. Coulter's point is that it shouldn't matter, and that any time the justice system starts divining motive it can no longer be considered actual justice.

We consider motive all the time. murder 1 vs murder 2 vs manslaughter vs self defense. In all of them you kill, what you were thinking makes a big difference on sentencing. I would say i agree that if satan made you kill someone it's pre-meditated or murder 1. If you walked in and your wife is banging your best friend, and you kill them in the heat of passion, that's murder 2. So we get to the same place but she gets there wrong.

You voted for Rahm. Embrace the fail.

I didn't, wouldn't have and couldn't have (live outside the city). The ONLY redeeming thing he's done is tell that Karen what's her name exactly what he thought of her. Of course, then he gives her what she wanted, but for a moment in time, i thought, man he MIGHT not be that bad. I mean, Daley would never have pissed her off. Then i saw that hope swirl away into the great cesspool that is chicago politics.

BTW, teachers in the district near me make ~47k on average and way outperform chicago on standardized tests--despite an enormous number of kids who are ESL. In chicago they average ~70k and they bomb those tests all the time. One of my facebook friends said, well that's because the cost of living in chicago is higher. I came back with--yeah it's higher because the taxes are higher! Taxes that go to pay the teachers! You can't say we need to make more because we jacked up the taxes. i have several teacher friends (some my age, and ca couple my mom's age) and they did not take kindly to that. i don't know why. they all teach in the suburbs of their own areas, so I'm basically arguing they aren't the ones that need their paychecks cut.

Anyway, the moral of the story is blatant partisanship is annoying. Yours and theirs. Just as they blindly supported teachers who were performing poorly. you're backing a party that uses racism and us vs them as a major part of their campaign, and instead of denouncing it, you're saying, well the other team is worse. well even if what you say is true (and we'll never agree that its really only one party that using racial politics), that doesn't make it okay.


yes, Al sharpton and Jesse Jackson are terrible people. JJ sr wore a bloody shirt to make everyone think he was on the porch with MLK, and since then it's all been downhill. Then his kid. Geez. There are so many things I would call them if this were not an all ages forum. Al Sharpton is a living breathing caricature of what's wrong with Chicago. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing your blind partisanship is equally bad. We should hold the people we support against a higher standard. We should feel like it's okay to say, well they are wrong on this. Or, that ad is disgraceful. We should not just go lockstep with a party because they will again and again abuse that.

[jmervyn]

I was being rhetorical, because there's obviously nothing in there that's going to be racist.

Of course not; codewords abound.

that's fair. it wasn't "sudden", but it did happen.

No, not really. Not even allowing for the false concept that every black person goes Dem and every white person went GOP. Ann Coulter pretty much nails it when she proved that the South only moved to the GOP as the Segregationists died off. Even a critic would admit that it was only when G. H. W. Bush swept the south that there was actually a pattern, and that's not even noteworthy because of the racial divide.

Are you saying that Dubya's born again status did not affect the election? i disagree. He certainly garnered a lot of support from religious folks.

Complete & utter BS. If Busho did, then why didn't Obama, who talked God far more often?

BTW, i thought the Steele thing was blown well out of proportion--like it happened once and he said it was half the audience. Too bad because I kinda liked how he just called it like he saw it.

So that's blown out of proportion, just like this sort of thing is, right? Except, of course, bullshyte.

lol, that's not serious, is it?

You decide.

totally forgot about the homophone. did you ever find out who called you that?

I don't even remember, but I cherish the idiocy. Kind of like the user who didn't know what the Num Lock does.

What is that supposed to mean?

That people are people, and the sooner we stop treating them as "voting blocs" the sooner they break free of their chains - self-imposed or not.

So we get to the same place but she gets there wrong.

I don't think motive <should> matter, which is what her point seemed to me to be. Murder with premeditation ought to be the chair/firing squad, spontaneous murder ought to be life imprisonment, and manslaughter something less.

Anyway, the moral of the story is blatant partisanship is annoying. Yours and theirs. Just as they blindly supported teachers who were performing poorly. you're backing a party that uses racism and us vs them as a major part of their campaign, and instead of denouncing it, you're saying, well the other team is worse. well even if what you say is true (and we'll never agree that its really only one party that using racial politics), that doesn't make it okay.

Actually, what I'm saying is that you're a buffoon, because you take your party's word that the other party is the ONLY one doing so, when it ought to be obvious to a 2nd grader that the vast majority of such "sins" are by your party. Only the media filter stands in the way of such realization. You just restated your underlying belief - that it is "really only one party that is using racial politics", but you believe that party is the GOP.

I'm arguing your blind partisanship is equally bad.

The only reason you claim blind partisanship on my part is that I routinely skewer your own sacred cow. You've never even paid attention when I say anything bad about the GOP, because YOUR OWN BLIND PARTISANSHIP, reinforced by your coterie of Progressives, is that the norm is GOP=EEEBILLL XXIAAN RETHUGLIKKKANS!! Why would I be noticed when speaking what, for your warped mind, is a unremarkable statement? It's only when I discuss the Democrats as the party of totalitarianism, appeasement, infanticide, sodomy, adultery, treason, &c. that you start whining.

[jmervyn]

I'm sure we disagree on the results of anarchy too, so in that respect you are correct: I am certain I do not want whatever it is you believe the results of anarchy are.

There are no different definitions of anarchy unless you're dishonest. It is what it is. If you're stupid enough to believe the theoretical goodness of an absolute lack of authority, you're too far gone for even the 2"*4" I'd use on Steve.

You want to shrink the parasite down to a more manageable level. While admirable (although I would obviously go a little farther), any gains you make only give the parasite more to feed off of.

The more I consider it, the more I think the solution is to chop the parasite into 50 tiny bits, as our Founders conceived. Your view is that somehow the nation could exist without authority of any stripe. Sorry, but I have personal experience that such society doesn't look like the end of Atlas Shrugged; go watch The Postman instead.

How does the state claim its "profits"? Through production and peaceful, voluntary trade?

The Germans sometimes have a somewhat wiser concept from what I recall, despite their Socialism - as payment for services rendered. A cop pulls you over, you bribe him on the spot - or face triple the fine for going to court and adding to the bureaucracy. More of that, and less of the 'shared burden' collectivism, would go a long way - that's why whenever a school voucher vote fails I'm mystified.

[Stevinator]

I can't do anything if you're going to play the words have whatever meaning I want them to have thing again. I'm not sure where the codewords are in that, but I don't see racism in wanting to allow illegals to have a way to eventually become citizens. I'm not even entirely convinced that its racism the other way. That's why i didn't include it in my bit about what is an is not a racist policy.

You decide.

So? Who cares? i can like a band's music and not like their politics. Hell half the time I can't follow the lyrics anyway.

And for the record, not a big beatles fan anyway. They had some catchy tunes, but people get weird about them.

That people are people, and the sooner we stop treating them as "voting blocs" the sooner they break free of their chains - self-imposed or not.

As long as groups share similar opinions there will be voting blocks. I'd like to think that people wouldn't vote on race or religion, but to them, that's what's important. These people annoy me, but it's a free country. can't toss em out for being annoying, there'd be no one left.

I don't think motive <should> matter, which is what her point seemed to me to be. Murder with premeditation ought to be the chair/firing squad, spontaneous murder ought to be life imprisonment, and manslaughter something less.

those two sentences counterdict each other.

Actually, what I'm saying is that you're a buffoon, because you take your party's word that the other party is the ONLY one doing so, when it ought to be obvious to a 2nd grader that the vast majority of such "sins" are by your party. Only the media filter stands in the way of such realization.

I don't affiliate with a party. If the GOP got their act together, I'd be more consistent for them, but i feel like the kooky ones have ruined the party. Plus the lack of doing the one thing i expect from them--cutting spending. The tea party looked like it might be the answer, but then it was co-opted by the same nut bars i would like to have avoided. There's only a handful of dems not in madigan's pocket (mostly not in my area), so often i'm selecting between two terrible terrible options. it's the state of modern democracy. who's least bad. The direction the parties have aligned now basically means there won't be many votes i'm proud of.

You just restated your underlying belief - that it is "really only one party that is using racial politics", but you believe that party is the GOP.

I believe i said the exact opposite of that. scroll up my friend. The only racist policy I cited was Affirmative Action.

The only reason you claim blind partisanship on my part is that I routinely skewer your own sacred cow. You've never even paid attention when I say anything bad about the GOP, because YOUR OWN BLIND PARTISANSHIP, reinforced by your coterie of Progressives, is that the norm is GOP=EEEBILLL XXIAAN RETHUGLIKKKANS!! Why would I be noticed when speaking what, for your warped mind, is a unremarkable statement? It's only when I discuss the Democrats as the party of totalitarianism, appeasement, infanticide, sodomy, adultery, treason, &c. that you start whining.

lol. really? I'm partisan because a handful of social issues? i hope you don't decide whom to vote for on things like the last three there. I don't even know how "adultery" is an issue....anyway, I'm learning your code words, but it's hard because those words look so much like real actual english words, and well, english was my first language. It's hard to ignore the conventional definitions for these things.

In fact, the only "issue" of the whole bunch there is "appeasement" and that's only for national office, and romney basically agreed with obama so there wasn't any choice on that.

"totalitarianism" isn't a party thing in my opinion. I think both parties seem okay with chipping away at our rights, but it's very hard to pick out which candidate is going to really stand up for anything in campaign season. Really, both sides don't seem to care about much of anything but winning elections, and paying off the big contributors. That's not a single party thing either.

Anyway, I have to smile that directly below (it'll be above when i post, i suppose) you're suddenly interested in the meanings of words again. I'll throw you a bone, ask Saro what force would keep the strongest in line without at least a skeleton government. I mean, if it's in someone's interest to seize your property, and there were no law to protect property rights, what would stop said person from picking on the guy who can't afford protection?

[BobCox2]

I can't do anything if you're going to play the words have whatever meaning I want them to have thing again. I'm not sure where the codewords are in that, but I don't see racism in wanting to allow illegals to have a way to eventually become citizens. I'm not even entirely convinced that its racism the other way. That's why i didn't include it in my bit about what is an is not a racist policy.

Hey white boys! I don't remember the Native Americans inviting you be citizens.

[SaroDarksbane]

The more I consider it, the more I think the solution is to chop the parasite into 50 tiny bits, as our Founders conceived.

Conceived? You mean, of course, "as they did". How did that work out for us?

Your view is that somehow the nation could exist without authority of any stripe.

Without slaves and masters.

The Germans sometimes have a somewhat wiser concept from what I recall, despite their Socialism - as payment for services rendered. A cop pulls you over, you bribe him on the spot - or face triple the fine for going to court and adding to the bureaucracy.

Well, I tend to agree that the mafia beats the government in all the ways that matter, so no argument there.

More of that, and less of the 'shared burden' collectivism

And yet you support a number of collectivized "shared burdens" like any socialist central planner. You correctly believe that the market is fully capable of producing healthcare without the nanny-state's intervention. Why do you believe differently for roads, fire departments, and police services?