gvg

Oklahoma: Are you serious? Did you not read the first page of this thread? We are for relgious freedom. Christian? Why not! Muslim? Why not! Atheist? Why not! We will never implement that. You probably aren't joking, so I want you to read the first page, rethink your values, and try again. Dawh: I'll read it when I get a chance, but what you yourself wrote is right =)

Yeah, Cal. let us down. =( Now let's see if congress does anything. =(

AMERICA, THY NAME IS STUPID. Really, this'll help progress. Guess the only smart people participate in this forum huh? =)

Pass my video on to everyone. The link is here (remove the space in youtube)http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=QlBOv8m_Xa8&feature=player_embedded

Alright people, time to vote!!!! Wish I could (too young) but those who can, REMEMBER: I liked you're metaphor Dwah's. It does work =)

I know what you mean. I have friends who are better than me in some things, and I'm better in others. Yes, people compete; truthfully, I love it. It drives me, to try and get better, to pass them. I may be connected to education, and I freak if I don't see A+'s, but I understand that this is part of a bigger picture, and that the competition doesn't end (I want to be a biologist in case you care). Those who give up, well, they don't deserve it. Work hard to succeed. See the connection in a sorta political way? (Socialism maybe? But not really... I dunno.) I'll explain better later, I'm being rushed. =)

My English class is awesome too; we always get off topic (That's the fun part =)) and twice now she wanted to start discussing religion (mythology unit, she's an atheist i think), but she stopped herself because it wasn't a college class. And it is true, in high school you have to figure stuff out more (excpet in languages and health. meh [but health is fun]) The thing is, with the last part, I don't see that. All of the honors kids I know (Don't want to brag, but I'm in every honors class I can be in, soo...) freak out more than the regulars, and try harder. If you want to work, you will, regardless of where you are.

Make it more advanced in Kindergarten. it's the first year of real school, and I remember most of my time being spent on arts and crafts, with very little otherwise. Make it more focused on math, science, English, SS, etc. early on, and less art.

Perfect. I like it. but don't make sports/clubs mandatory. That's a little too much; if they want to, they will, and those who don't will simply join something... and not show up. But 7-4, 1 hr. periods... I like it.

But see, it's optional for people like you who get good grades and mandatory for those who are failing or almost failing. it won't affect you unless you choose to go.

Oh, that reminds me: Why not have a 6 day week? The sixth day is mandatory for those who do poorly (Should we make it those failing or d+ and below...?)and optional for everyone else. All lunch helping things apply, it's a normal school day that doesn't count against your attendance, but can be used as an extra day for those that have missed a lot of time. Also, extend the school day, i suppose (Although clubs and sports like you said... but we can always start it early. My school goes from 7:20 to 1:55. Maybe instead to 2:30??? I dunno.) Dawh: Your post is very true. Education should be of utmost importance. Same to Izzy. And some parts of NCLB are OK... Doesn't it require help for mentally challenged individuals??? We have to keep that.

Well, we are not going to stop teaching everyone. I think education is a right, so we aren't going to start only teaching our elite (Think class divisions are crazy now? Think about it if the happens). Instead of teaching down, we need to bring the students up. I pick the first option you gave. We could do this in a number of ways. Maybe we could give tax credits to those households who have a kid who gets a certain grade on a state wide exam (the more great students, the more the tax cuts). Of course, this would give some an unfair advantage in some instances, but it's a start. Or maybe if a school, overall, gets a certain grade (Say, and average of 75%), then the entire community (who have kids in the school of course) gets rewarded somehow. Again, though, that would be unfair to those without kids. So see, that's the problem. We need to pursue the first option. But it's hard to find something that still is fair to the rest of the community. And I'm big on fairness. But if worst comes to worst, we have to throw fairness out the window to be able to fix the problem. In my school, they made my honors class take a regular student state test, so that the grade's wouldn't be horrible. Thing like that need to stop happening. Honors take one test, regs. another. We need to make sure that those who get help need it, and if they don't deserve to make it to the next grade, well, hold them back. Those who excel should be given the chance to skip grades. (Neither of these things happen by me, I dunno about you...) We need to truly see what the problem is before we can fix it, and help those who need it. (Now, I want to say something about affirmative action. I am not 100% cool with it. Case in point: I know a scholarship program that you can only pursue if you are black; sorry to the white, or latino, or asian student with the same credentials. Businesses are FORCED to interview minority candidates, even if they have no chance of winning the job because, well, they're bad at what they do; and this has been known to take away chances from people who deserve the job. I could go on. Now, I understand the helping minorities tid bit; there's obviously reasons for it. But we should help them be EQUAL in society, not give them special treatment to beat out people even if they don't deserve it. Yes, keep that scholarship program, but make it available for everyone. Yes, keep that financial help thing for blacks, but make it available for EVERYONE. See what I mean? [i hope you guys understand that I'm not racist. I am a technically a minority myself{hence the map; GO BRAZIL!}, but even if I wasn't, I don't want anyone to biring up cries of racist. I don't think you guys specifically will, but I've known others who have.])

So it seems (I not entirely sure, me and primaries don't mix. I only really know national stuff. 'Cept for O'Donnell of course =)) the tea party has been bad for the republicans. Now what I meant by democrat or independent: The truth is, the democrats are just as focused on party loyalties, campaign money, keeping their position, etc. as the rep. are. If we get an independent, wouldn't they not have those problems (Well, maybe the funding part) because of their independence? And what do you guys feel about the DADT issue being resolved by the judges? Does this prove that the judicial system is the most powerful branch? Should we dare to vote in a judge as president, if one runs? (Just sayin') I'm trying to think of discussion points here. Anybody have anything to add?

I guess we have sort of covered all of this, I just wanted something to discuss. Seems that without UtF, there's nothing to discuss. And I'm sure you'll win. =)

So, this thread has died at this point. Let me try some good ol' CPR: DADT repealed. What do ya think? Should we vote democrat or liberal independent? (For liberals) Has the tea party done more bad than good for republicans? SOMEBODY ANSWER!!

Never. Or scooby will eat you =)

No prob. =)

Misskitten: No, not yours, i was referring to Nick's. =) Specifically the third one.

Sounds like Lord of the Rings. =)

What I meant by my equation is that most of the money would end up in the pockets of school officials. So, I just want procedures to be set in place that would allow the government to regulate what's going on. If the money doesn't create results, an investigation must be launched; if it is found to be because none or very little of the money actually went into helping the students (through books, extra tutors, etc.), then new people have to be hired. Immediately. That's all. And you should have realized by now that I have no problem with tax hikes and wealth redistribution. I agree. I just want to make sure corruption doesn't result, as I've heard about in some schools near me.

Dawh: Never mind. I thought it over, and your voting idea seems fine. I don't know what the problem was that I thought of. =) I understand what you're saying about the schools. But giving money to the bad schools wouldn't fix everything. Think about it: If you receive a lot of money for being a bad school, all of a sudden, you're one of the best, and outdistance other schools until it's basically a role reversal. More money, role reversal again. And plus (I look at everything this way), humans that didn't have money before + money + the fact that I know of some schools by me where there is corruption involved, and where the superintendent makes more money than the president = BAD. I do understand that that may be the only fair option (Mine is kinda cruel), but if that's the case, we have to think of limitations to get rid of everything, or almost everything, that I mentioned above.

I wasn't really talking about costs in that way. I said If it was a, then yes, I suppose sponsorship is needed. But if it's because it's a bad school, then why bother? Kinda like the bank holiday. It included transport costs, but in the long run, it helped in the depression. A school holiday, which would close schools that were below standards (Better than giving good schools money, as it has caused cheating on tests). It would improve education. I read in that book I told you guys about, Nudge, the author suggested a type of school competition (Of course, he also wanted to privatize schools, but that's another matter) Dunno if that'll help, just a suggestion.

Well, in that case, maybe. But the thing is, if taxpayer money isn't enough, it means either a)Everyone's poor around there or b)No one is paying because no one wants to go there, in which case it is probably better if it closed, like a bank holiday (BTW, a school holiday like the bank one might be beneficial; just an idea). If the problem is a, then I suppose. If it's b, then it's better to have it close and the students transferred.

Izzy: Dawh said it best. That wouldn't be good; schools are the last place that corporations should be involved in. To give you an example: What if a religious corporation (Is there such a thing?) Did what you said. Suddenly, intelligent design is a part of the school agenda, and maybe they say "If you don't remove evolution, we will stop giving you money." So an obvious delenma (How do you spell this?) ensues: Remove every chance of students learning about evolution, or losing all money to help students learn at all. So, I disagree. Dawh: Well, then people would complain, saying that they didn't initially vote for him, so they didn't represent what they want, yadda yadda yadda. Plus, that would mean that maybe it would be all republicans on one ballot, all democrats on another, all greenies, etc., and there wouldn't be a majority. (Now, because of the one person representing the party in the presidential race, this doesn't happen on that level. But that means you are forcing people to vote for other parties they don't agree with, bringing us back to the representation issue). So unless I misunderstand you still, and there is a way to prevent all of these problems, then no.

Whatdya mean? Like a schloraship by a corporation? Well, it's the least they could do.