Please sign in to complete your action
 
DONE!
Cheer and debate with
6,000,000+ fans!
My Team:
Charlotte
My Team:
Michael
My Team:
Britney
Asked by: bubas38 (+)

» Contact me
» Send Gift
Answers Created: 659
Tiger Woods



Last Answer: av5238 (+)

» Contact me
» Send Gift
Answers: 575
Chicago Bears




Who liked it? 41
ssusiej46 (+)
Politics

Diablorain (+)
Politics

huskerfan_ia (+)
Nebraska Cornhuskers

sweetgirl5398 (+)
Dale Earnhardt Jr


Irish22 (+)
Notre Dame Fighting Irish

lbruce (+)
Minnesota Golden Gophers


kokomojo5 (+)
Politics

Sedona (+)
Chicago Cubs

... and 31 other fans
 « Locker Room Polls  |  Skip to Next Poll »
41
WOW This Is Obama's Plan
 

An economics professor at a local college made a statement 
that he had never failed a single student before, but had once 
failed an entire class.

--------------------------------------------

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked 
and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, 
a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have
an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". 


All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive 
the same grade so no one would fail and no one would 
receive an A. 

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone 
got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the 
students who studied little were happy.  

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied 
little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard 
decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.  
The second test average was a D! 
No one was happy. 

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. 

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling 
all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the 
benefit of anyone else.  

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that 
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is 
great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes 
all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. 

Could not be any simpler than that.
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Closes 20 days | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
Question 1: Do you want this to happen to you?
Yes.I love this.
No way
And you call yourself a Democrat?
This can't be.
ROFLMAO

Question 2: Can you afford this way of life?
Yes
No
Ican't believe you printed something like this.
You can't be Democrat.
Your crazy and we all know it now.

41

(Caution -- you will be unable to change your answer.)


 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#51 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

"DADDY!!  They are talking about me and I don't understand them!!!!"

Enter the poll to see my answer
25

  
208 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 70 days ago
bmcannon1 (+)

(Edited by bmcannon1)
I think the proffeser was full of sh*t.
Enter the poll to see my answer
24

#2 | 70 days ago

 FIRST OF ALL THE COMPARISON ARE NOT FAIR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLASS ROOM,AND THE COUNTRY ARE APPLES AND ORANGES,LETS GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO UNDO THE MESS THAT THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION GOT US IN THE NEEDY IN THIS COUNTRY NEEDS HELP AND IF YOU HAVE BEEN THERE YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT
Enter the poll to see my answer
20

#3 | 70 days ago

 (Edited by marcus_nyce)
That's the OLDEST story on the interwebs. (Edited for spel. mistakes. I think I was in this guys class at one point. LOL)
25

#4 | 70 days ago

 That's pretty much how 100% Socialism works.... or technically doesn't work.
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#5 | 70 days ago
mooser58 (+)

Enter the poll to see my answer
22

#6 | 70 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
That's pretty much how 100% Socialism works.... or technically doesn't work.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find any country in the world that is 100% Socialist...at least according to the definition provided here...
17

#7 | 70 days ago

 half_baked wrote:
I think you'll be hard pressed to find any country in the world that is 100% Socialist...at least according to the definition provided here...
Because it hasn't worked.
Enter the poll to see my answer
14

#8 | 70 days ago

 I told you u cant trust anyone
8

#9 | 70 days ago

 half_baked wrote:
I think you'll be hard pressed to find any country in the world that is 100% Socialist...at least according to the definition provided here...

Sure, I doubt there ever has been.  But the closer one gets to it...

Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#10 | 70 days ago

 RunningDawg wrote:
Because it hasn't worked.
I don't think its be tried to that extent...even in communist states, there was some aspects of capitalism allowed... 
10

#11 | 70 days ago

 I don't see the relevance.  it's apples and oranges.
19

#12 | 70 days ago
cubsgirl (Glenda) profile photo

 I really do not see how this is at all a fair comparison.  I am tired of this man being shot down without even being allowed to try.
Enter the poll to see my answer
21

#13 | 70 days ago

 We are pretty much doomed unless we can stop these nut jobs.
Enter the poll to see my answer
14

#14 | 70 days ago
bmcannon1 (+)

We were pretty much doomed when bush got us into the situation we are in.
Enter the poll to see my answer
16

#15 | 70 days ago

 bmcannon1 wrote:
We were pretty much doomed when bush got us into the situation we are in.
Without some of the things Clinton did, things wouldn't have gotten as bad as they did with Bush.

and you can go all the way back to some things FDR did, and so on, and so on.

They all had their dirty hands in this.
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#16 | 70 days ago
cubsgirl (Glenda) profile photo

 (Edited by cubsgirl)
cubsgirl wrote:
I really do not see how this is at all a fair comparison.  I am tired of this man being shot down without even being allowed to try.
Wow I didnt realize I was being funny.
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#17 | 70 days ago
bmcannon1 (+)

cubsgirl wrote:
Wow I didnt realize I was being funny.
It wasnt funny at all. It was smart.
Enter the poll to see my answer
17

#18 | 70 days ago

 RunningDawg wrote:
Because it hasn't worked.
When you remove the incentive for success, success is rarely obtained.

Another way to illustrate this is like this.  When I was in High School, if you wanted to earn some money in the summer one way was to work for a farmer.  During the summer, they'd hire kids to walk beans (walk between the rows and pick weeds).

One farmer paid the kids by the hour.  $6.00, pretty good wage for then, but it was backbreaking labor.
One farmer paid by the weed.  If you worked hard, you'd make more than the $6.00 per hour.  If you didn't work hard you'd make less than the $6.00 per hour.

Guess which farmer had the hardest working kids?  He also had the lower input costs because he got more production per hour.  Everyone who worked for the second guy made more money, and the farmer was more profitable and had cleaner fields.

Government intervention in this scenario would look like this.  The people working for the first farmer would complain that they didn't have as much money as the people working for the second farmer.  Government would then tax the employees of the second farmer, lowering their income, and then give it to the people who worked for the first farmer.

So if you were an employee for the second farmer, what's the incentive for working hard and busting your back?

Long term these kinds of policies will destroy our economy. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
24

#19 | 70 days ago

 Yes, this is indeed an over-simplified way of demonstrating a concept, in attempting to compare an "Apples to Oranges" situation.  You can take any situation and create a set of rules, and state that it compares with a policy.   But the underlying concept shown that by taking the effort of the harder working people and giving it to the people who are unable or unwilling to participate, a society can go downhill, as people see their efforts going to others who seem not to deserve it.

Of course, I'm not trying to defend or persecute anyone here.  The concept of taking from the poor and downtrodden and giving to the rich is unacceptable as well. 

None of these problems can be solved by comparisons such as these.  They just prove how unfair any policy can be.  Of course, don't take me too seriously, I'm just a Fool.
Enter the poll to see my answer
17

#20 | 70 days ago

 Our government is becoming so corrupt we will become another Mexico.  I for one do not like the way our country is going.  Government is too big and we are taxed to death and it is only getting worse.
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#22 | 70 days ago

 What did Bush leave that anyone would want to take on?  The President has a lot of work ahead to get the "Change" he promised this country.  He walked in to a massive global financial crisis, a failed military adventure and a huge deficit just to name a few the day he took office!

 

Enter the poll to see my answer
18

#23 | 70 days ago

 Once again- yet another poll trying to bash President Obama- ho hum.........  this is getting so increasingly BORING guys!
Enter the poll to see my answer
19

#24 | 70 days ago

 Really has no relevance since we're not going to be a socialist country but whatever.  Also, if you enjoy the fact that you are protected by your police, can call firemen to take out a fire, can drive on roads, have a military to protect us, have top notch health care for those members of the military, enjoy Medicare & Social Security when you are retired, like the fact that you can drink clean water, don't have to worry about eating spoiled or rotten food from the store, and so on you have enjoyed the benefits of some sort of socialism.  We've never been just a capitalist society, never been just a socialist society, and we never will be just one of those.  We've always mixed them because both of them in their purity suck and don't work.
20

#25 | 70 days ago
mooser58 (+)

(Edited by mooser58)
kantwistaye wrote:
Really has no relevance since we're not going to be a socialist country but whatever.  Also, if you enjoy the fact that you are protected by your police, can call firemen to take out a fire, can drive on roads, have a military to protect us, have top notch health care for those members of the military, enjoy Medicare & Social Security when you are retired, like the fact that you can drink clean water, don't have to worry about eating spoiled or rotten food from the store, and so on you have enjoyed the benefits of some sort of socialism.  We've never been just a capitalist society, never been just a socialist society, and we never will be just one of those.  We've always mixed them because both of them in their purity suck and don't work.
Well put.  Everything we are in now is not ALL Bush's fault as much as it is a pattern of abuse by Washington and all politicians for the past several decades.
Enter the poll to see my answer
23

#26 | 70 days ago

 vindog wrote:
Once again- yet another poll trying to bash President Obama- ho hum.........  this is getting so increasingly BORING guys!
WTF we are in more debit then ever under President Obama.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#27 | 70 days ago

 OK, however there are many different motivators for people to work, do a good job, enjoy being productive, etc.  The only motivator is not money.  Some people feel rewarded by their income, some by helping someone else, some by simply doing a good job, some by a sense of accomplishment, some by their special ability, some from being able to be productive and some from recognition.

So what this boils down to is, conservatives pretty much only feel reward in jobs by their income alone.  That's pretty sad if you ask me.

That's why that analogy breaks down, not every student (although most) are not simply motivated by the desire for a good grade.
13

#28 | 70 days ago
d29point9 (+)

I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
OK, however there are many different motivators for people to work, do a good job, enjoy being productive, etc.  The only motivator is not money.  Some people feel rewarded by their income, some by helping someone else, some by simply doing a good job, some by a sense of accomplishment, some by their special ability, some from being able to be productive and some from recognition.

So what this boils down to is, conservatives pretty much only feel reward in jobs by their income alone.  That's pretty sad if you ask me.

That's why that analogy breaks down, not every student (although most) are not simply motivated by the desire for a good grade.
WTF makes you think that conservatives 'pretty much' only feel reward in jobs by their income alone??  This, said another way (Liberal twisting of words - check the media, they are famous for this), is basically saying - Conservatives do NOT care about doing a good job, do NOT feel a sense of accomplishment, do NOT feel rewarded by a special ability, etc. - you get my point I hope.

If I misunderstood what you are saying, then I do apologize.  But how it reads looks pretty damn petty and biased to me.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#29 | 70 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
OK, however there are many different motivators for people to work, do a good job, enjoy being productive, etc.  The only motivator is not money.  Some people feel rewarded by their income, some by helping someone else, some by simply doing a good job, some by a sense of accomplishment, some by their special ability, some from being able to be productive and some from recognition.

So what this boils down to is, conservatives pretty much only feel reward in jobs by their income alone.  That's pretty sad if you ask me.

That's why that analogy breaks down, not every student (although most) are not simply motivated by the desire for a good grade.
Sure, when looking at things in a vacuum, some people do their jobs because they like it and they can feel good about their accomplishments regardless of monetary compensation.

I wouldn't imagine that there are too many people that wouldn't care if they worked hard but got compensated just as much as someone who worked little or didn't work at all.

Disclaimer:  I am one of those types of people.  In my department, we all pretty much have the same job responsibilities, some people do very little, some do their share, and some pick up the slack from the ones doing little.  There aren't 2 people who get the same pay, and it's not the ones working their butt off making the most money.  I personally don't care, 'cause I'm glad to just get a paycheck, I have to calm tempers constantly because the topic rubs just about everyone else the wrong way.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#30 | 70 days ago

 Tell him to sort his health care $hit out
6

#31 | 70 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
When you remove the incentive for success, success is rarely obtained.

Another way to illustrate this is like this.  When I was in High School, if you wanted to earn some money in the summer one way was to work for a farmer.  During the summer, they'd hire kids to walk beans (walk between the rows and pick weeds).

One farmer paid the kids by the hour.  $6.00, pretty good wage for then, but it was backbreaking labor.
One farmer paid by the weed.  If you worked hard, you'd make more than the $6.00 per hour.  If you didn't work hard you'd make less than the $6.00 per hour.

Guess which farmer had the hardest working kids?  He also had the lower input costs because he got more production per hour.  Everyone who worked for the second guy made more money, and the farmer was more profitable and had cleaner fields.

Government intervention in this scenario would look like this.  The people working for the first farmer would complain that they didn't have as much money as the people working for the second farmer.  Government would then tax the employees of the second farmer, lowering their income, and then give it to the people who worked for the first farmer.

So if you were an employee for the second farmer, what's the incentive for working hard and busting your back?

Long term these kinds of policies will destroy our economy. 
So you're saying that ONLY the hardest-working people in this country make the big bucks?  And all those making less are just not working as hard? 
WOW ... do I ever beg to differ. 
Paris Hilton makes more money than all of the Q member combined, but works less than ANY of us do.  That's just one example, but let's be honest, it happens all day, every day in this country.  And not just with celebrities.
Enter the poll to see my answer
19

#32 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
So you're saying that ONLY the hardest-working people in this country make the big bucks?  And all those making less are just not working as hard? 
WOW ... do I ever beg to differ. 
Paris Hilton makes more money than all of the Q member combined, but works less than ANY of us do.  That's just one example, but let's be honest, it happens all day, every day in this country.  And not just with celebrities.
In this case, I have to say, don't blame her, blame those paying her.  Where's she getting the money from?  Where are they getting the money from?  Obviously there is something along the line she's doing (and if you seen the video(s), it doesn't look like it's anything behind closed doors) that keeps the money flowing.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#33 | 69 days ago

 Capitalism has it's evils too every thing cannot be driven by a profit motive, without any control companies may start reducing Wages (this why socialism first came) or Quality to enhance their profit someone has to control them.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#34 | 69 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
In this case, I have to say, don't blame her, blame those paying her.  Where's she getting the money from?  Where are they getting the money from?  Obviously there is something along the line she's doing (and if you seen the video(s), it doesn't look like it's anything behind closed doors) that keeps the money flowing.
Hey, I'm not hating on her ... good for her!  I'm just saying that capitalism isn't all about "hard work = more money".  Sometimes there's luck involved, sometimes nepotism, sometimes deception. 
Some people achieve greatness of their own accord ... some get it as a graduation present.    Just saying.
Enter the poll to see my answer
21

#35 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
Hey, I'm not hating on her ... good for her!  I'm just saying that capitalism isn't all about "hard work = more money".  Sometimes there's luck involved, sometimes nepotism, sometimes deception. 
Some people achieve greatness of their own accord ... some get it as a graduation present.    Just saying.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree.

But you missed the point, she is still doing something to get the money.  Unless it's all from Daddy, in which case, he earned his and can do with it as he pleases.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#36 | 69 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree.

But you missed the point, she is still doing something to get the money.  Unless it's all from Daddy, in which case, he earned his and can do with it as he pleases.
Gray areas there, too.  Yes, she's technically doing something to get (some of) her money.  But really ... would she have been on TV if it weren't for her family name?  Would she have been in movies?  Getting paid to show up at clubs and events? 
I think YOU missed the point.    I'm not saying that people like Paris Hilton are doing NO work for their money.  I'm saying that the amount of work (and difficulty level of that work) that they do is nowhere NEAR in proportion to the amount of money they make for it.  I know people making minimum wage, working harder in one day than Paris probably does in a year!  That was the point (well, at least that was MY point  lol).
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#37 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
Gray areas there, too.  Yes, she's technically doing something to get (some of) her money.  But really ... would she have been on TV if it weren't for her family name?  Would she have been in movies?  Getting paid to show up at clubs and events? 
I think YOU missed the point.    I'm not saying that people like Paris Hilton are doing NO work for their money.  I'm saying that the amount of work (and difficulty level of that work) that they do is nowhere NEAR in proportion to the amount of money they make for it.  I know people making minimum wage, working harder in one day than Paris probably does in a year!  That was the point (well, at least that was MY point  lol).
I understand your point completely.  I said I agreed with it's not always the hardest worker who gets the most money (didn't I already say I'm in that situation?).

The point you're ignoring is, she's getting the money from somewhere for doing something, you may not think it's hard work, but then again, you probably don't mind all that paparazzi buzzing around you 24/7, having your looks bashed/gawked/etc. 24/7, spending ungodly amounts of money of just the right shoes, etc. etc.

I don't follow celebrities, but obviously there are millions of people out there that do, who are also the ones that make her what she's worth.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#38 | 69 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
I understand your point completely.  I said I agreed with it's not always the hardest worker who gets the most money (didn't I already say I'm in that situation?).

The point you're ignoring is, she's getting the money from somewhere for doing something, you may not think it's hard work, but then again, you probably don't mind all that paparazzi buzzing around you 24/7, having your looks bashed/gawked/etc. 24/7, spending ungodly amounts of money of just the right shoes, etc. etc.

I don't follow celebrities, but obviously there are millions of people out there that do, who are also the ones that make her what she's worth.
But she also CHOSE that lifestyle.  Even with her wealthy parents, I didn't know anything about her, nor had I even seen her, until she decided to throw herself all over TV with silly reality show BS. 
I get your point, and you're right that she IS doing something for her money.  I just don't think that it's fair to say (going back to my original point from 80000 posts ago  lol) that in a capitalist society the harder you work, the more money you have.  In many cases it is true, but I think there are vast number of cases that it is anything BUT true!
Enter the poll to see my answer
14

#39 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
But she also CHOSE that lifestyle.  Even with her wealthy parents, I didn't know anything about her, nor had I even seen her, until she decided to throw herself all over TV with silly reality show BS. 
I get your point, and you're right that she IS doing something for her money.  I just don't think that it's fair to say (going back to my original point from 80000 posts ago  lol) that in a capitalist society the harder you work, the more money you have.  In many cases it is true, but I think there are vast number of cases that it is anything BUT true!
Sure.  Again, I agree with you. (you just like to hear that, don't you?)

Now can you stop proving the same point we've agreed upon the past 4-5 comments and just accept the fact that she's getting paid because of what she does is entertaining to millions of people and your just jealous?    j/k

Yeah, she chose to go that route, just like most people choose where they go too.  Doesn't make it any lesser of a job just because it's a different job, does it?  In this case, the people paying her are getting their money's worth, else they wouldn't be interested in what she's offering.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#40 | 69 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
Sure.  Again, I agree with you. (you just like to hear that, don't you?)

Now can you stop proving the same point we've agreed upon the past 4-5 comments and just accept the fact that she's getting paid because of what she does is entertaining to millions of people and your just jealous?    j/k

Yeah, she chose to go that route, just like most people choose where they go too.  Doesn't make it any lesser of a job just because it's a different job, does it?  In this case, the people paying her are getting their money's worth, else they wouldn't be interested in what she's offering.
I keep restating the point because you keep CHANGING the subject and deviating from my original point!  lol  I don't care what she does or how much people love to watch her (and by people, I mean YOU  lol) ... that was not the point of my original statement.  Ughh, I hate you.  You must love to hear THAT!    I'm so not talking to you (aka: posting with you) for like 5 days, minimum!  lol

PS - I reserve the right to amend the 5-day non-talking clause for any reason, at any time. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#41 | 69 days ago

 WoW! I am sure glad I am back at work.
Enter the poll to see my answer
16

#42 | 69 days ago
Enter the poll to see my answer
20

#43 | 69 days ago
rileyjames47 (+)

vindog wrote:
Once again- yet another poll trying to bash President Obama- ho hum.........  this is getting so increasingly BORING guys!
 What do you expect Vin ? Can't have any support for a President, who is actually TRYING to change things for the better. I saw a clip of some preacher today who said, "I am going to pray for Obamas death and that he goes to hell".  All the freaks are out in full force everywhere you look.  The above example is so flawed and unrealistic it is not worth commenting on.
17

#44 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
So you're saying that ONLY the hardest-working people in this country make the big bucks?  And all those making less are just not working as hard? 
WOW ... do I ever beg to differ. 
Paris Hilton makes more money than all of the Q member combined, but works less than ANY of us do.  That's just one example, but let's be honest, it happens all day, every day in this country.  And not just with celebrities.
Paris Hilton?

<shaking head in disbelief

Ok, first of all she didn't have to be a productive member of society to get her fortunes, her Dad did.  Secondly, what is the percentage of people in this country who fall into her socio-economic category?  Less than 1%?  So that's a pretty lame example.

Thirdly, no, there are people who don't work hard and get higher salaries, but that wasn't my point.  (Nicely done changing the subject again). My point has to do with removing the incentive to excel.  When that is removed, when people see that that extra effort will be penalized, not rewarded, the incentive goes away.

Regarding what Steve says, I agree.  Not with the assertion that conservatives only care about money, because nothing could be further from the truth.  But in that people do have inherent qualities that drive them to do great things.  But if you think that is all that drives the human being day to day, year to year, cradle to grave, you're mistaken.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing.  It's a socialist vs. capitalism thing.  Saying it's Bush's fault or Clinton, or Congress or Obama isn't looking at the issues in a honest way.  They're all socialist to one degree or another.  They all are for the redistribution of wealth.  They all gain power by promising to have the government do something for you, then end up doing something to you.

To those who say give Obama a chance, I'd love to give him a chance, but any politician, of any stripe, of any party, will get my opposition if their plan is to systematically remove our liberties by increasing the size of government and taking away more and more of my freedom and do so by putting my children deeper and deeper in debt for their short term political gain.

One last thing, referencing back to my earlier example about the farmers, when the topic of public schools comes up, what is one of the solutions offered regarding quality of education?  The answer is invariably includes money, pay the teachers more, and you'll get better education for the kids, give them performance pay in their contracts to encourage them to excel.  This comes from the NEA, which is primarily a supporter of........ democrats.  So your side encourages financial reward for job well done as well.  My wife is a teacher btw, and I agree with them.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#45 | 69 days ago

 rileyjames47 wrote:
 What do you expect Vin ? Can't have any support for a President, who is actually TRYING to change things for the better. I saw a clip of some preacher today who said, "I am going to pray for Obamas death and that he goes to hell".  All the freaks are out in full force everywhere you look.  The above example is so flawed and unrealistic it is not worth commenting on.
Holy cow, a preacher said that, where did you see that clip?  Could you paste a link here or tell me what channel you saw that on?

Seriously, that's some pretty sick sh*t for anyone to say something like that.  Send me the info, I want to engage this sicko.
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#46 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
But she also CHOSE that lifestyle.  Even with her wealthy parents, I didn't know anything about her, nor had I even seen her, until she decided to throw herself all over TV with silly reality show BS. 
I get your point, and you're right that she IS doing something for her money.  I just don't think that it's fair to say (going back to my original point from 80000 posts ago  lol) that in a capitalist society the harder you work, the more money you have.  In many cases it is true, but I think there are vast number of cases that it is anything BUT true!
 Janet..... reality show BS.... hmmmm... you don't like reality shows?  See.... I knew I we had SOMETHING in common.... 
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#47 | 69 days ago

 rileyjames47 wrote:
 What do you expect Vin ? Can't have any support for a President, who is actually TRYING to change things for the better. I saw a clip of some preacher today who said, "I am going to pray for Obamas death and that he goes to hell".  All the freaks are out in full force everywhere you look.  The above example is so flawed and unrealistic it is not worth commenting on.
 I guess change things for the better is a matter of opinion...... if you like socialism or think it's better than capitalism... then I guess he is trying to change things for the better.......
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#48 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Paris Hilton?

<shaking head in disbelief

Ok, first of all she didn't have to be a productive member of society to get her fortunes, her Dad did.  Secondly, what is the percentage of people in this country who fall into her socio-economic category?  Less than 1%?  So that's a pretty lame example.

Thirdly, no, there are people who don't work hard and get higher salaries, but that wasn't my point.  (Nicely done changing the subject again). My point has to do with removing the incentive to excel.  When that is removed, when people see that that extra effort will be penalized, not rewarded, the incentive goes away.

Regarding what Steve says, I agree.  Not with the assertion that conservatives only care about money, because nothing could be further from the truth.  But in that people do have inherent qualities that drive them to do great things.  But if you think that is all that drives the human being day to day, year to year, cradle to grave, you're mistaken.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing.  It's a socialist vs. capitalism thing.  Saying it's Bush's fault or Clinton, or Congress or Obama isn't looking at the issues in a honest way.  They're all socialist to one degree or another.  They all are for the redistribution of wealth.  They all gain power by promising to have the government do something for you, then end up doing something to you.

To those who say give Obama a chance, I'd love to give him a chance, but any politician, of any stripe, of any party, will get my opposition if their plan is to systematically remove our liberties by increasing the size of government and taking away more and more of my freedom and do so by putting my children deeper and deeper in debt for their short term political gain.

One last thing, referencing back to my earlier example about the farmers, when the topic of public schools comes up, what is one of the solutions offered regarding quality of education?  The answer is invariably includes money, pay the teachers more, and you'll get better education for the kids, give them performance pay in their contracts to encourage them to excel.  This comes from the NEA, which is primarily a supporter of........ democrats.  So your side encourages financial reward for job well done as well.  My wife is a teacher btw, and I agree with them.
 Just an observation about liberal vs. conservative regarding being compassionate.....

At least from many of our politicians..... liberals believe in the charity of the government as opposed to personal giving to charity.... conservatives believe in personal giving to charity as opposed to relying on the government to provide charity with other people's money.

I make this general statement based on information about the lack of personal charitable donations by Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joe Biden and their very minuscule charitable giving....
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#49 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Paris Hilton?

<shaking head in disbelief

Ok, first of all she didn't have to be a productive member of society to get her fortunes, her Dad did.  Secondly, what is the percentage of people in this country who fall into her socio-economic category?  Less than 1%?  So that's a pretty lame example.

Thirdly, no, there are people who don't work hard and get higher salaries, but that wasn't my point.  (Nicely done changing the subject again). My point has to do with removing the incentive to excel.  When that is removed, when people see that that extra effort will be penalized, not rewarded, the incentive goes away.

Regarding what Steve says, I agree.  Not with the assertion that conservatives only care about money, because nothing could be further from the truth.  But in that people do have inherent qualities that drive them to do great things.  But if you think that is all that drives the human being day to day, year to year, cradle to grave, you're mistaken.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing.  It's a socialist vs. capitalism thing.  Saying it's Bush's fault or Clinton, or Congress or Obama isn't looking at the issues in a honest way.  They're all socialist to one degree or another.  They all are for the redistribution of wealth.  They all gain power by promising to have the government do something for you, then end up doing something to you.

To those who say give Obama a chance, I'd love to give him a chance, but any politician, of any stripe, of any party, will get my opposition if their plan is to systematically remove our liberties by increasing the size of government and taking away more and more of my freedom and do so by putting my children deeper and deeper in debt for their short term political gain.

One last thing, referencing back to my earlier example about the farmers, when the topic of public schools comes up, what is one of the solutions offered regarding quality of education?  The answer is invariably includes money, pay the teachers more, and you'll get better education for the kids, give them performance pay in their contracts to encourage them to excel.  This comes from the NEA, which is primarily a supporter of........ democrats.  So your side encourages financial reward for job well done as well.  My wife is a teacher btw, and I agree with them.
OK....I'm just singling out the last part of your rant post......."...give them performance pay in their contracts to encourage them to excel. This comes from the NEA..."

Hmmmm.....yeah.....here's the thing --NEA is not such a big supporter of performance pay...since there really isn't a fair way to do this. Sure you can take test scores...but given the fact that each state has their own state education standards and test, not really a good way to base pay.
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#50 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 Just an observation about liberal vs. conservative regarding being compassionate.....

At least from many of our politicians..... liberals believe in the charity of the government as opposed to personal giving to charity.... conservatives believe in personal giving to charity as opposed to relying on the government to provide charity with other people's money.

I make this general statement based on information about the lack of personal charitable donations by Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joe Biden and their very minuscule charitable giving....
WOW...and we all know we should judge a large group of people based on ONLY 3. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#51 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

"DADDY!!  They are talking about me and I don't understand them!!!!"

Enter the poll to see my answer
25

#52 | 69 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
OK....I'm just singling out the last part of your rant post......."...give them performance pay in their contracts to encourage them to excel. This comes from the NEA..."

Hmmmm.....yeah.....here's the thing --NEA is not such a big supporter of performance pay...since there really isn't a fair way to do this. Sure you can take test scores...but given the fact that each state has their own state education standards and test, not really a good way to base pay.
Ok, well here they are a supporter of it, and the school use it.  And guess what, it works.  So nanner nanner. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#53 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Ok, well here they are a supporter of it, and the school use it.  And guess what, it works.  So nanner nanner. 
So says YOU that it works. I don't buy it. So there....Corn MAN!
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#54 | 69 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
So says YOU that it works. I don't buy it. So there....Corn MAN!
You love corn, admit it. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#55 | 69 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
WOW...and we all know we should judge a large group of people based on ONLY 3. 
 Becky... just saying that these three people are all about big government and redistribution of wealth yet are not willing to part with their own..... just pointing out hypocrisy....
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#56 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 Becky... just saying that these three people are all about big government and redistribution of wealth yet are not willing to part with their own..... just pointing out hypocrisy....
Whatever!
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#57 | 69 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
So says YOU that it works. I don't buy it. So there....Corn MAN!
SAT Scores 2009:

Rank State Critical Reading Math Writing Combined
1 Iowa 610 615 588 1813
2 Wisconsin 594 608 582 1784
3 Minnesota 595 609 578 1782
4 Missouri 595 600 584 1779
5 Illinois 588 604 583 1775
6 Michigan 584 603 575 1762
7 South Dakota 589 600 569 1758
8 Nebraska 587 594 572 1753
9 North Dakota 590 593 566 1749
10 Kansas 581 589 564 1734
11 Kentucky 573 573 561 1707
12 Oklahoma 575 571 557 1703
13 Tennessee 571 565 565 1701
14 Arkansas 572 572 556 1700
15 Colorado 568 575 555 1698
16 Wyoming 567 568 550 1685
17 Mississippi 567 554 559 1680
18 Louisiana 563 558 555 1676
19 Alabama 557 552 549 1658
20 Utah 559 558 540 1657
21 New Mexico 553 546 534 1633
22 Ohio 537 546 523 1606
23 Montana 541 542 519 1602
24 Idaho 541 540 520 1601
25 Washington 524 531 507 1562
26 New Hampshire 523 523 510 1556
27 Massachusetts 514 523 510 1547
28 Oregon 523 525 499 1547
29 Vermont 518 518 506 1542
30 Connecticut 509 513 512 1534
31 Arizona 516 521 497 1534
32 Alaska 520 516 492 1528
33 Virginia 511 512 498 1521
34 California 500 513 498 1511
35 West Virginia 511 501 499 1511
36 All Students 501 515 493 1509
37 New Jersey 496 513 496 1505
38 Maryland 500 502 495 1497
39 Rhode Island 498 496 494 1488
40 North Carolina 495 511 480 1486
41 Nevada 501 505 479 1485
42 Indiana 496 507 480 1483
43 Delaware 495 498 484 1477
44 Pennsylvania 493 501 483 1477
45 Florida 497 498 480 1475
46 Texas 486 506 475 1467
47 New York 485 502 478 1465
48 Georgia 490 491 479 1460
49 South Carolina 486 496 470 1452
50 Hawaii 479 502 469 1450
51 Maine 468 467 455 1390
52 District of Columbia 466 451 461 1378


Seems to be working well in Iowa.
Source
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#58 | 69 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
Whatever!
Like, totally trippendicular answer! 
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#59 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
SAT Scores 2009:

Rank State Critical Reading Math Writing Combined
1 Iowa 610 615 588 1813
2 Wisconsin 594 608 582 1784
3 Minnesota 595 609 578 1782
4 Missouri 595 600 584 1779
5 Illinois 588 604 583 1775
6 Michigan 584 603 575 1762
7 South Dakota 589 600 569 1758
8 Nebraska 587 594 572 1753
9 North Dakota 590 593 566 1749
10 Kansas 581 589 564 1734
11 Kentucky 573 573 561 1707
12 Oklahoma 575 571 557 1703
13 Tennessee 571 565 565 1701
14 Arkansas 572 572 556 1700
15 Colorado 568 575 555 1698
16 Wyoming 567 568 550 1685
17 Mississippi 567 554 559 1680
18 Louisiana 563 558 555 1676
19 Alabama 557 552 549 1658
20 Utah 559 558 540 1657
21 New Mexico 553 546 534 1633
22 Ohio 537 546 523 1606
23 Montana 541 542 519 1602
24 Idaho 541 540 520 1601
25 Washington 524 531 507 1562
26 New Hampshire 523 523 510 1556
27 Massachusetts 514 523 510 1547
28 Oregon 523 525 499 1547
29 Vermont 518 518 506 1542
30 Connecticut 509 513 512 1534
31 Arizona 516 521 497 1534
32 Alaska 520 516 492 1528
33 Virginia 511 512 498 1521
34 California 500 513 498 1511
35 West Virginia 511 501 499 1511
36 All Students 501 515 493 1509
37 New Jersey 496 513 496 1505
38 Maryland 500 502 495 1497
39 Rhode Island 498 496 494 1488
40 North Carolina 495 511 480 1486
41 Nevada 501 505 479 1485
42 Indiana 496 507 480 1483
43 Delaware 495 498 484 1477
44 Pennsylvania 493 501 483 1477
45 Florida 497 498 480 1475
46 Texas 486 506 475 1467
47 New York 485 502 478 1465
48 Georgia 490 491 479 1460
49 South Carolina 486 496 470 1452
50 Hawaii 479 502 469 1450
51 Maine 468 467 455 1390
52 District of Columbia 466 451 461 1378


Seems to be working well in Iowa.
Source
What exactly does this prove? That kids in Iowa take a butt load of test prep classes.......try again.
Enter the poll to see my answer
16

#60 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

kteacher wrote:
Whatever!
Snappy comeback.  Did you learn that this week from one of your students? 
Enter the poll to see my answer
21

#61 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
Snappy comeback.  Did you learn that this week from one of your students? 
NOPE....I learned it LAST year from one of my students.





SmartA$$! LOL
Enter the poll to see my answer
22

#62 | 69 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
What exactly does this prove? That kids in Iowa take a butt load of test prep classes.......try again.
No, it proves the kids in Iowa score higher on SAT's.  Which supports my contention that paying teachers for performance works.
Enter the poll to see my answer
16

#63 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

kteacher wrote:
NOPE....I learned it LAST year from one of my students.





SmartA$$! LOL
Glad to see you are staying consistent year to year.  That is important in education. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#64 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
No, it proves the kids in Iowa score higher on SAT's.  Which supports my contention that paying teachers for performance works.
 With the exception of jobs that involve unions, pay and promotion is based on performance (yes, there are some examples where politics plays a roll in promotion but that is equal whether in a union job or not).  Why should teaching be any different.  I had some awesome teachers while in school and some really poor teachers yet based on tenure and seniority the best teacher got paid the same as the worst teacher.  How does that promote excellence?  It doesn't!

Any place you have a union, it creates performance problems.  Go into an UAW shop or AFL-CIO shop, especially in the automotive industry..... if a job is "labeled" a plumbers job then a regular maintenance person can't touch that job and has to wait for a plumber to come over even if it is just tightening a fitting that the regular maintenance guy could have tightened with the wrench in his pocket.... but now we have to wait 1/2 hour for the plumber to get there.....

And tenure.... it takes an act of God to get a teacher fired once they have tenure... what other jobs have tenure?  

I say reward the best teachers with more pay and let the poor teachers either improve their game or suffer the financial consequences.. maybe some of those bad teachers would then find other professions!
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#65 | 69 days ago

 Iowa: 
a) should be the new centre for commerce and technical achievemnet in America
b) has a lot of students with a lot of time to study
c) has a lot of desperate students trying to study their way out of Iowa
d) has the best cheaters in America - refer back to suggestion a) 
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#66 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
So you're saying that ONLY the hardest-working people in this country make the big bucks?  And all those making less are just not working as hard? 
WOW ... do I ever beg to differ. 
Paris Hilton makes more money than all of the Q member combined, but works less than ANY of us do.  That's just one example, but let's be honest, it happens all day, every day in this country.  And not just with celebrities.
I agree, but don't use Paris as an example Miss Thang!  She inherited her s***.

Now ... we can poke a finger at Britney!  :)
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#67 | 69 days ago

 It's too damned early to read this before my first cup of coffee is in my system (anyone have an IV?), let alone read all the information presented.....LOL.  I'll get back to this one....
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#68 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
No, it proves the kids in Iowa score higher on SAT's.  Which supports my contention that paying teachers for performance works.
FYI====Many kids score higher on the SAT because they take a butt load of SAT prep courses which cost a lot of money. Most of which aren't taught  by credentialed teachers.

And, for your information, I believe the SAT BLOWS!
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#69 | 69 days ago

 I am so sick of all of you so called "Patriots" taking shots at Obama!!!

First off; how many of you "good Americans" who keep calling President Obama (and for that matter the democratic party) socialist have actually read The Communist Manifesto; or understand that modern socialism is actually a French concept in which the working class sought to get fair compensation for their labors and goods.

How patriotic is it to call your president a socialist. Never before in the history of our country would this have been tolerable! The thing that amazes me the most is that some of the same people who deplore China for its media blackout of news related to the incident in Tienanmen Square are the very same individuals who pulled their children from school because they did not want their children "too be indoctrinated by Obama's socialistic ideologies." {Definitely a more apples to apples comparison.}

There is definitely an "ism" influencing our country today and it is not socialism!

Since when does the right to a fair wage, decent education and health care make a man a socialist?

How many career politicians, or Wall Street corporate executives have had to go back into the work force after having lost a job paying an hourly wage in the mid teens and only to have to settle for an "entry level" position paying 8-10 bucks an hour because that is the "standard wage" for the position?

I wonder if these same people had to go to work for a temp service, stand on the line next to a "full-time employee" for 40-50 hours a week, perform the same job with no time off for illness (childcare, death in the family, take your choice) and no health care for a period of 6-12 months before being hire as a "full-time" employee; if these same career politicians, or Wall Street corporate executives would object as forcefully to the rights of workers then.

I can't speak for all of America but, I just want to be able to support my family in a decent manner just like the corporate/political fat cats.

Socialism as a system does not work on its own; but, neither does capitalism.

Lets explore what would have happened if we truly operated in a free market economy. {Please note this is a dumbed down version of what would happen. I can't put an entire Economics course into a post.}

1. After the failure of Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns there  would be no T.A.R.P. or T.A.L.F. The resulting cascade of bank failures would have been catastrophic. There would no longer be a B of A, Citi, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, WaMu, Icould go on but I think I've made that point.

2. Runs on the banks, the media fear tactic initially used to push for the passage of these large bills, would have never materialized. The overwhelming majority of Americans hold deposits of less than the insured 250 grand. So we all would have been able to get our rent money for next month out of the bank just fine.

3. Those financial institutions that had made wise investments and financial decisions with your money would temporarily suspend all lending activities. This is simple self preservation just as plant in a drought don't flower and animals faced with starvation modify their methods of hunting.

4. The resulting freeze in credit issuance would cripple every company that did not have a sufficient cash reserve to ride out the storm; very possible 1-2 years.

5. The resulting insolvency by the major financial institutions would further cloud the housing crisis. Banks in Chapter 7 would be forced to be more aggressive in both the seizure of delinquent loans and in the modifications of those loans that could be salvaged. This results because in a Chapter 7 an entity must prove to an arbitrator that the resulting entity has the necessary assets to balance any pending debts.

6. Construction and manufacturing would all but come to a halt. For those businesses that were not operating at a cash surplus the resulting lack of financing would render all new projects useless because they would not be able to secure financing to meet supplier obligations, payroll and health care among others.

7, The severe jobs losses that began last October would have increased as more companies filed for Chapter 7 protection.

8. The increase in foreclosures and Chapter 7 filings would stymie the court system.

9. The backlog in the court systems would force more Chapter 7 filings as debtors become unable to collect upon debts because the indebted are in some state of litigation.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#70 | 69 days ago

 RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
I agree, but don't use Paris as an example Miss Thang!  She inherited her s***.

Now ... we can poke a finger at Britney!  :)
Hey!  Paris works for HER money!    OK, I tried.  Getting on McWiggle's bandwagon...

Britney sucks!  lol
Enter the poll to see my answer
14

#71 | 69 days ago

 GiantsGO GIANTS!
13

#72 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 With the exception of jobs that involve unions, pay and promotion is based on performance (yes, there are some examples where politics plays a roll in promotion but that is equal whether in a union job or not).  Why should teaching be any different.  I had some awesome teachers while in school and some really poor teachers yet based on tenure and seniority the best teacher got paid the same as the worst teacher.  How does that promote excellence?  It doesn't!

Any place you have a union, it creates performance problems.  Go into an UAW shop or AFL-CIO shop, especially in the automotive industry..... if a job is "labeled" a plumbers job then a regular maintenance person can't touch that job and has to wait for a plumber to come over even if it is just tightening a fitting that the regular maintenance guy could have tightened with the wrench in his pocket.... but now we have to wait 1/2 hour for the plumber to get there.....

And tenure.... it takes an act of God to get a teacher fired once they have tenure... what other jobs have tenure?  

I say reward the best teachers with more pay and let the poor teachers either improve their game or suffer the financial consequences.. maybe some of those bad teachers would then find other professions!
Try Congress
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#73 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
I am so sick of all of you so called "Patriots" taking shots at Obama!!!

First off; how many of you "good Americans" who keep calling President Obama (and for that matter the democratic party) socialist have actually read The Communist Manifesto; or understand that modern socialism is actually a French concept in which the working class sought to get fair compensation for their labors and goods.

How patriotic is it to call your president a socialist. Never before in the history of our country would this have been tolerable! The thing that amazes me the most is that some of the same people who deplore China for its media blackout of news related to the incident in Tienanmen Square are the very same individuals who pulled their children from school because they did not want their children "too be indoctrinated by Obama's socialistic ideologies." {Definitely a more apples to apples comparison.}

There is definitely an "ism" influencing our country today and it is not socialism!

Since when does the right to a fair wage, decent education and health care make a man a socialist?

How many career politicians, or Wall Street corporate executives have had to go back into the work force after having lost a job paying an hourly wage in the mid teens and only to have to settle for an "entry level" position paying 8-10 bucks an hour because that is the "standard wage" for the position?

I wonder if these same people had to go to work for a temp service, stand on the line next to a "full-time employee" for 40-50 hours a week, perform the same job with no time off for illness (childcare, death in the family, take your choice) and no health care for a period of 6-12 months before being hire as a "full-time" employee; if these same career politicians, or Wall Street corporate executives would object as forcefully to the rights of workers then.

I can't speak for all of America but, I just want to be able to support my family in a decent manner just like the corporate/political fat cats.

Socialism as a system does not work on its own; but, neither does capitalism.

Lets explore what would have happened if we truly operated in a free market economy. {Please note this is a dumbed down version of what would happen. I can't put an entire Economics course into a post.}

1. After the failure of Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns there  would be no T.A.R.P. or T.A.L.F. The resulting cascade of bank failures would have been catastrophic. There would no longer be a B of A, Citi, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, WaMu, Icould go on but I think I've made that point.

2. Runs on the banks, the media fear tactic initially used to push for the passage of these large bills, would have never materialized. The overwhelming majority of Americans hold deposits of less than the insured 250 grand. So we all would have been able to get our rent money for next month out of the bank just fine.

3. Those financial institutions that had made wise investments and financial decisions with your money would temporarily suspend all lending activities. This is simple self preservation just as plant in a drought don't flower and animals faced with starvation modify their methods of hunting.

4. The resulting freeze in credit issuance would cripple every company that did not have a sufficient cash reserve to ride out the storm; very possible 1-2 years.

5. The resulting insolvency by the major financial institutions would further cloud the housing crisis. Banks in Chapter 7 would be forced to be more aggressive in both the seizure of delinquent loans and in the modifications of those loans that could be salvaged. This results because in a Chapter 7 an entity must prove to an arbitrator that the resulting entity has the necessary assets to balance any pending debts.

6. Construction and manufacturing would all but come to a halt. For those businesses that were not operating at a cash surplus the resulting lack of financing would render all new projects useless because they would not be able to secure financing to meet supplier obligations, payroll and health care among others.

7, The severe jobs losses that began last October would have increased as more companies filed for Chapter 7 protection.

8. The increase in foreclosures and Chapter 7 filings would stymie the court system.

9. The backlog in the court systems would force more Chapter 7 filings as debtors become unable to collect upon debts because the indebted are in some state of litigation.
 Isn't amazing how the Democrats are crying now when they were the same ones that started this lack of decorum.  Have you already forgotten how George Bush has been treated?  But of course that was ok.... I didn't notice you putting up a huge protest even on the Q when people have bashed Bush.... so..... suck it up and deal with it..... the dems created it... they let the genie out of the bottle and there is no putting it back in...

It was actually started back in the 80's with Ted Kennedy trying to destroy Robert Bork and the brutal treatment of Clarence Thomas... as a matter of fact when you use this method to try to smear people it is called "Borking" someone.... hmmmmm... not created by Republicans... how can you possibly protest so much?
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#74 | 69 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
FYI====Many kids score higher on the SAT because they take a butt load of SAT prep courses which cost a lot of money. Most of which aren't taught  by credentialed teachers.

And, for your information, I believe the SAT BLOWS!
I agree, in fact if you check the link I posted you'll see that Iowa's participation in the SAT is very low.  Most students here take the ACT, which is where I thought you'd strike back (but apparently you didn't click the link, no matter, I'm prepared with ACT data as well ).

I understand your argument, but do you have data to support that Iowans (or any other state in the top 20 or so) has an inordinate number of kids taking these prep classes?  Is there data that suggests how much test scores improve while taking these prep courses?  I do know this, all Iowans have the opportunity to take prep courses for college, they're called high school.  We have the best teachers in the country, They come here because the pay is good, they'll be rewarded for success, and the quality of life is top notch (a little biased there).  There are exceptions of course, but there always are.

My wife started out teaching in a different state, she loved it there, and the pay was excellent.  You'd have to talk to her on the specific differences, but she says Iowa is a better place to teach kids because there's less distractions for teachers, and they're able to more freely do what they do best, teach.  When you have an environment that in more conducive to teaching, and you reward your teachers for results, you get better results.

And yes Carl, the NEA here is a challenge, but Iowa is a 'Right to Work' state, and that weakens the power unions have over employers.  The dues for teachers in Iowa is $70 per month.  My wife says the only benefit is some type of malpractice insurance (maybe Becky can explain that better).  In her school, only half or less of the teachers belong.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#75 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
I am so sick of all of you so called "Patriots" taking shots at Obama!!!

First off; how many of you "good Americans" who keep calling President Obama (and for that matter the democratic party) socialist have actually read The Communist Manifesto; or understand that modern socialism is actually a French concept in which the working class sought to get fair compensation for their labors and goods.

How patriotic is it to call your president a socialist. Never before in the history of our country would this have been tolerable! The thing that amazes me the most is that some of the same people who deplore China for its media blackout of news related to the incident in Tienanmen Square are the very same individuals who pulled their children from school because they did not want their children "too be indoctrinated by Obama's socialistic ideologies." {Definitely a more apples to apples comparison.}

There is definitely an "ism" influencing our country today and it is not socialism!

Since when does the right to a fair wage, decent education and health care make a man a socialist?

How many career politicians, or Wall Street corporate executives have had to go back into the work force after having lost a job paying an hourly wage in the mid teens and only to have to settle for an "entry level" position paying 8-10 bucks an hour because that is the "standard wage" for the position?

I wonder if these same people had to go to work for a temp service, stand on the line next to a "full-time employee" for 40-50 hours a week, perform the same job with no time off for illness (childcare, death in the family, take your choice) and no health care for a period of 6-12 months before being hire as a "full-time" employee; if these same career politicians, or Wall Street corporate executives would object as forcefully to the rights of workers then.

I can't speak for all of America but, I just want to be able to support my family in a decent manner just like the corporate/political fat cats.

Socialism as a system does not work on its own; but, neither does capitalism.

Lets explore what would have happened if we truly operated in a free market economy. {Please note this is a dumbed down version of what would happen. I can't put an entire Economics course into a post.}

1. After the failure of Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns there  would be no T.A.R.P. or T.A.L.F. The resulting cascade of bank failures would have been catastrophic. There would no longer be a B of A, Citi, Morgan Stanley, Wachovia, WaMu, Icould go on but I think I've made that point.

2. Runs on the banks, the media fear tactic initially used to push for the passage of these large bills, would have never materialized. The overwhelming majority of Americans hold deposits of less than the insured 250 grand. So we all would have been able to get our rent money for next month out of the bank just fine.

3. Those financial institutions that had made wise investments and financial decisions with your money would temporarily suspend all lending activities. This is simple self preservation just as plant in a drought don't flower and animals faced with starvation modify their methods of hunting.

4. The resulting freeze in credit issuance would cripple every company that did not have a sufficient cash reserve to ride out the storm; very possible 1-2 years.

5. The resulting insolvency by the major financial institutions would further cloud the housing crisis. Banks in Chapter 7 would be forced to be more aggressive in both the seizure of delinquent loans and in the modifications of those loans that could be salvaged. This results because in a Chapter 7 an entity must prove to an arbitrator that the resulting entity has the necessary assets to balance any pending debts.

6. Construction and manufacturing would all but come to a halt. For those businesses that were not operating at a cash surplus the resulting lack of financing would render all new projects useless because they would not be able to secure financing to meet supplier obligations, payroll and health care among others.

7, The severe jobs losses that began last October would have increased as more companies filed for Chapter 7 protection.

8. The increase in foreclosures and Chapter 7 filings would stymie the court system.

9. The backlog in the court systems would force more Chapter 7 filings as debtors become unable to collect upon debts because the indebted are in some state of litigation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism">socialism</a>">Check out the definition of Socialism.

"Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means and distribution of goods"

Communism is a form of government that subscribes to socialism as an economic model.  I don't think anyone here is calling our president a Communist.  It is not unpatriotic to appropriately use words like socialism to describe government policy. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#76 | 69 days ago

 Poli_ wrote:
Iowa: 
a) should be the new centre for commerce and technical achievemnet in America
b) has a lot of students with a lot of time to study
c) has a lot of desperate students trying to study their way out of Iowa
d) has the best cheaters in America - refer back to suggestion a) 
Unfortunately, C is probably the most correct statement of the 4 choices. 


Centre for Technical Achievement    Just one example
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#77 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Check out the definition of Socialism.

"Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means and distribution of goods"

Communism is a form of government that subscribes to socialism as an economic model.  I don't think anyone here is calling our president a Communist.  It is not unpatriotic to appropriately use words like socialism to describe government policy. 
Agreed ... but Scott, why then is there such an outcry about "socialism" in our government TODAY?  By that definition, our country has been a Socialist country since day one (at the very least it has had many socialist ideas used in our governmental structure), and EVERY president has promoted and accepted socialism in our government for over 200 years. 

Is it now just a smear tactic from the opposing side?  Couldn't be mud-slinging, could it? 
Enter the poll to see my answer
14

#78 | 69 days ago

 Crossing Guard
13

#79 | 69 days ago

 I am against Socialism, only cause i like to work and I hate Doctors. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
16

#80 | 69 days ago

 WTF  this poll  is getting heated   lol   i am staying out of this. bye the way,  why are you all avoiding my comment (WTF we are in more debit then ever under President Obama.)  it must be true lol
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#81 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
Agreed ... but Scott, why then is there such an outcry about "socialism" in our government TODAY?  By that definition, our country has been a Socialist country since day one (at the very least it has had many socialist ideas used in our governmental structure), and EVERY president has promoted and accepted socialism in our government for over 200 years. 

Is it now just a smear tactic from the opposing side?  Couldn't be mud-slinging, could it? 
The outcry today is because of the bailouts, government ownership of automakers, and an attempted takeover of the health care industry.  (and yes, I know Bush did it too, he was a socialist as well).

Also, because of partisanship, there was an outcry from the left with the creation of the homeland security department and the control it had and the money spent and the loss of liberty.  I was right there with em then.  Partisanship unfortunately gets us away from the debate at hand.  We spend more time defending or supporting 'our guy' than we do supporting the ideology we believe is best for our country.

You'll notice that most people in a debate like this start talking about 'us' and 'them'.  It's not an us or them argument, its an ideological one.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#82 | 69 days ago

 I love being from the upper Midwest... check out the top 9 states.  Even though it usually doesn't come across on here, I love my top-flight education!

Janet's state is ranked 37th, how'd she get so darn SMRT? 
10

#83 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 Isn't amazing how the Democrats are crying now when they were the same ones that started this lack of decorum.  Have you already forgotten how George Bush has been treated?  But of course that was ok.... I didn't notice you putting up a huge protest even on the Q when people have bashed Bush.... so..... suck it up and deal with it..... the dems created it... they let the genie out of the bottle and there is no putting it back in...

It was actually started back in the 80's with Ted Kennedy trying to destroy Robert Bork and the brutal treatment of Clarence Thomas... as a matter of fact when you use this method to try to smear people it is called "Borking" someone.... hmmmmm... not created by Republicans... how can you possibly protest so much?
My post had nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with America taking care of Americans. My criticism is the blatant racism that has reared its ugly head in our country.

The "brutal treatment" of Clarence Thomas was due to his own "ism" (sexism). It had nothing to do with political party. Almost every confirmation hearing is marred with personal commentary that borders on the lines of liablous behavior.

Instead of hiding behind the failing dual party system why not step out and address the issues that I posed?
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#84 | 69 days ago

 Daniel_and_Becca wrote:
WTF  this poll  is getting heated   lol   i am staying out of this. bye the way,  why are you all avoiding my comment (WTF we are in more debit then ever under President Obama.)  it must be true lol
Each President since Reagan has increased the debt, some at a greater pace than others.

Clinton outspent Bush 1, Bush 2 outspent Clinton, and now Barack Obama will outspend all of them.  We asked for it, we vote for guys who promise us goodies.  The only way to fulfill those promises is to print money we don't have, and let the Chinese back our debt.  All parties have done it, all Presidents have done it, and as long as we're greedy for government hand outs it's going to continue.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#85 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
My post had nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with America taking care of Americans. My criticism is the blatant racism that has reared its ugly head in our country.

The "brutal treatment" of Clarence Thomas was due to his own "ism" (sexism). It had nothing to do with political party. Almost every confirmation hearing is marred with personal commentary that borders on the lines of liablous behavior.

Instead of hiding behind the failing dual party system why not step out and address the issues that I posed?
Do you believe people are against Obama's policies based on race?

I'm an equal opportunity socialist basher, I don't care what race you are.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#86 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Check out the definition of Socialism.

"Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means and distribution of goods"

Communism is a form of government that subscribes to socialism as an economic model.  I don't think anyone here is calling our president a Communist.  It is not unpatriotic to appropriately use words like socialism to describe government policy. 
I am very clear on the definition of socialism. Notice in my post I metion the 'roots' of modern socialism. But I don't remember anyone call George Bush a "socialist" after he (the U.S. Treasury under the Bush Administration) essentially bought AIG, CITI, B of A...
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#87 | 69 days ago

 (Edited by ankurnathmishra)
Always Remember nothing is perfect in this world. The best policy will be the one which creates a balance Between all participants.
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#88 | 69 days ago

 (Edited by half_baked)
huskerfan_ia wrote:
Check out the definition of Socialism.

"Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means and distribution of goods"

Communism is a form of government that subscribes to socialism as an economic model.  I don't think anyone here is calling our president a Communist.  It is not unpatriotic to appropriately use words like socialism to describe government policy. 
I'm definitely not disagreeing with what you've said, but...the problem with using the term "socialism" in the U.S., is that most Americans perceive that term as being something bad. There are many countries around the world that use socialist programs in one degree or another to great success. By watching American mainstream media, I think it's totally misunderstood.
8

#89 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Each President since Reagan has increased the debt, some at a greater pace than others.

Clinton outspent Bush 1, Bush 2 outspent Clinton, and now Barack Obama will outspend all of them.  We asked for it, we vote for guys who promise us goodies.  The only way to fulfill those promises is to print money we don't have, and let the Chinese back our debt.  All parties have done it, all Presidents have done it, and as long as we're greedy for government hand outs it's going to continue.
Clinton Left Bush a budget SURPLUS!!!

Bush's wars increased his deficite
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#90 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
This picture is too funny for several reasons.  As a student, he was the worst; as a party animal, he was the model; as a motivator, he was the best.  At the end of the movie, it says that he became a U.S. Senator.....LOL!
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#91 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Do you believe people are against Obama's policies based on race?

I'm an equal opportunity socialist basher, I don't care what race you are.
I believe the treatment of Obama is clearly based upon race.

I believe the insensitivity to the issues that he is most adamant are racially motivated. (As demonstrated by your complete lack of acknowledgement of the millions of Americans who have had to live under the conditions that i state in my original post. Like i said I am willing to debate the ISSUES any time.)
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#92 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
The outcry today is because of the bailouts, government ownership of automakers, and an attempted takeover of the health care industry.  (and yes, I know Bush did it too, he was a socialist as well).

Also, because of partisanship, there was an outcry from the left with the creation of the homeland security department and the control it had and the money spent and the loss of liberty.  I was right there with em then.  Partisanship unfortunately gets us away from the debate at hand.  We spend more time defending or supporting 'our guy' than we do supporting the ideology we believe is best for our country.

You'll notice that most people in a debate like this start talking about 'us' and 'them'.  It's not an us or them argument, its an ideological one.
Sadly, you're right about the partisanship in this country ... more sad is that it's the only way to get things done in this country that we feel IS for the best.  I will say this, though (and you or anyone else can take it as an "us" vs. "them" argument if you want, but it's truly how I feel) ... I think that when it comes to "reaching across the aisle" and working together, Obama is far more open to the idea than his predecessor.  I think the "us" vs. "them" attitude came to a full-blown crest with Bush #2, and I know that for a long time I was labeled by many Bush-backers as "unpatriotic" and since I wasn't "with them", I was a bad American. 

As for the Socialism in this country ... well, we're NOT a capitalist nation, never have been and never will be.  I don't think capitalism alone can work in any nation (nor do I think socialism on its own can work).  I think what makes this country great and so successful is our adaptability and our way of blending BOTH ideals to make a system that works on so many levels.  Many will say that socialism has not worked in other nations, but how successful were we when we refused to implement socialist ideas into our society in the past (example being President Hoover and his laissez-faire style of governing before this country entered its greatest Depression ever)?  FDR came into the picture and introduced many socialist programs that helped pull this country out of that depression (not to say that the war didn't actually help do that, too ... but no ONE thing alone pulled us out).  I think that the blending of capitalist and socialist ideas has, historically, made this country great and kept it that way. 

(Sidenote - I don't think the Homeland Security Department qualifies as much as a socialist ideal ... that was just a violation of our personal rights set forth by the Constitution.  Not that I like defending Bush and what he did because I think that was actually a worse offense than socialism, but I don't see that as a socialist implementation on his part.)
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#93 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
My post had nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with America taking care of Americans. My criticism is the blatant racism that has reared its ugly head in our country.

The "brutal treatment" of Clarence Thomas was due to his own "ism" (sexism). It had nothing to do with political party. Almost every confirmation hearing is marred with personal commentary that borders on the lines of liablous behavior.

Instead of hiding behind the failing dual party system why not step out and address the issues that I posed?
 The whole matter of fact is that Clarence Thomas' ism was a creation of liberal opponents..... 

Sorry.... lost your argument in my partisanship...... what was it again....

I think you will find that I, like Scott, am not a fan of either political party.  I am an American first conservative second and do my best to stick to conservative principles...... so.... big government and infringements on our liberty I am opposed to regardless of the party that is promoting it.....
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#94 | 69 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
OK, however there are many different motivators for people to work, do a good job, enjoy being productive, etc.  The only motivator is not money.  Some people feel rewarded by their income, some by helping someone else, some by simply doing a good job, some by a sense of accomplishment, some by their special ability, some from being able to be productive and some from recognition.

So what this boils down to is, conservatives pretty much only feel reward in jobs by their income alone.  That's pretty sad if you ask me.

That's why that analogy breaks down, not every student (although most) are not simply motivated by the desire for a good grade.
An excellent reference pertaining to the various motivations of individual perspective of work....
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#95 | 69 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
I understand your point completely.  I said I agreed with it's not always the hardest worker who gets the most money (didn't I already say I'm in that situation?).

The point you're ignoring is, she's getting the money from somewhere for doing something, you may not think it's hard work, but then again, you probably don't mind all that paparazzi buzzing around you 24/7, having your looks bashed/gawked/etc. 24/7, spending ungodly amounts of money of just the right shoes, etc. etc.

I don't follow celebrities, but obviously there are millions of people out there that do, who are also the ones that make her what she's worth.
OK now.....don't get me started on the Paparazzi and the question of freedom of the press......

One issue at a time....LOL! 
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#96 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

ojekeme1 wrote:
I believe the treatment of Obama is clearly based upon race.

I believe the insensitivity to the issues that he is most adamant are racially motivated. (As demonstrated by your complete lack of acknowledgement of the millions of Americans who have had to live under the conditions that i state in my original post. Like i said I am willing to debate the ISSUES any time.)
Yeah, this country elected a black man because it is racist.  Throwing the race card out there is the lamest attempt I have seen yet to say why people OVERALL are against Obama.  Yes I am sure there are people that are against him because of the color of his skin.  But making the blanket statement that it is "clearly based upon race" is just the same as saying the only reason he was elected was because of his race.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#97 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

(Edited by mooser58)
ojekeme1 wrote:
Clinton Left Bush a budget SURPLUS!!!

Bush's wars increased his deficite
False comment.  Not true.  The federal government's own numbers prove this statement incorrect.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#98 | 69 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
I love being from the upper Midwest... check out the top 9 states.  Even though it usually doesn't come across on here, I love my top-flight education!

Janet's state is ranked 37th, how'd she get so darn SMRT? 
Are you buttering me up to go in for the kill?  Your next post will be about how wrong I am about everything, right?  lol

(Plus, I'm glad New Jerseyans are 37th ... I look even more intelligent by comparison!    Awesome.  lol)
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#99 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
Yeah, this country elected a black man because it is racist.  Throwing the race card out there is the lamest attempt I have seen yet to say why people OVERALL are against Obama.  Yes I am sure there are people that are against him because of the color of his skin.  But making the blanket statement that it is "clearly based upon race" is just the same as saying the only reason he was elected was because of his race.
When equal health care become less about handouts for the poor and, more about making sure that the people who work hard everyday for pennies don't have to choose between food on the table and care when they are ill. I will believe that.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#100 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

ojekeme1 wrote:
When equal health care become less about handouts for the poor and, more about making sure that the people who work hard everyday for pennies don't have to choose between food on the table and care when they are ill. I will believe that.
What at all does that have to do with race?????
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#101 | 69 days ago

 That is what i wonder everytime I turn on the national news!!!
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#102 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

ojekeme1 wrote:
That is what i wonder everytime I turn on the national news!!!
The national news handles President Obama with kid gloves.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#103 | 69 days ago

 (Edited by Raven73)
   
Enter the poll to see my answer
3

#104 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
The national news handles President Obama with kid gloves.
The natioanl media started this whole Obama the Socialist business.
Enter the poll to see my answer
2

#105 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

ojekeme1 wrote:
The natioanl media started this whole Obama the Socialist business.
Charles, that was started by some over zealous right wingers.  The national media has given President Obama a pretty easy time of it to this point.  In fact the relationship, besides Fox News, has been down right cozy up to this point.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#106 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
Clinton Left Bush a budget SURPLUS!!!

Bush's wars increased his deficite
Clinton had a budget surplus, I wasn't talking about that.

The deficit is the amount of debt, that is what I'm referring to.
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#107 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
When equal health care become less about handouts for the poor and, more about making sure that the people who work hard everyday for pennies don't have to choose between food on the table and care when they are ill. I will believe that.
 This statement makes absolutely no sense what so ever!

I would say if you think healthcare is better in other countries, there is no reason why you can't go there and try it out for a few years and see if it is truly better.  Obviously you could move to Canada because people in Canada must make more money.... if you don't like the cold of Canada then England, France or Germany are options.  I just want someone to go to those other countries try it out and let me know.....
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#108 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
I believe the treatment of Obama is clearly based upon race.

I believe the insensitivity to the issues that he is most adamant are racially motivated. (As demonstrated by your complete lack of acknowledgement of the millions of Americans who have had to live under the conditions that i state in my original post. Like i said I am willing to debate the ISSUES any time.)
I will not debate with anyone ignorant enough to start out saying my beliefs are based on race.

I can't believe I even wasted the ink to type this.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#109 | 69 days ago

Obama's Health care plan.....ironic that the national broadcast media is now factoring in the $3.800 “penalty” for persons not having their own health care coverage now. Remember when the federal government decided to make it illegal not to have auto insurance? Rates for auto insurance doubled, because people had to have it. The same will happen if the current plan is adopted. Even so, under the current plan, working families will be relegated to rent, food, auto, home, and the needs of one's family—for many, that will be all for which they work, and for others in lower wage jobs, they will be too poor to even do that at all. And, under the current framework, it won't be long before companies and corporations stop providing health insurance options to their workers as they will “no longer be able to do so” and rationalize the integrity of their actions as, “the government offers health care”. Yes, it will ensure people have health care coverage, but it will ultimately benefit the insurance and medical corporations more than anyone it's supposed to serve. What is being introduced in a corporate benefited socialism which will further separate the economic rift between the classes. In modern society, universal health care should be a right to all working citizens. Unfortunately, there is as much consideration in Washington for the Representative and Senator's corporate contributors and the stability of their individual parties that the current schematic is one that will cripple working families, IMHO. Until we ban direct campaign contributions from both 'soft' and 'hard' sources, and contributions are distributed equally between the candidates so they don't know who's contributing (thus, no tangled alliances) that corrupt the integrity of the representative process, this country will not be able to focus upon the fair and equal balance for what is in the best interest of all concerned.

 

The essence of a “social capitalism” is not a bad concept. In the past several years, Iceland and Norway have both been ranked amongst the top places in the world to live attributed to it's standard of living and socio-political structure. They incorporate both the elements of socialism and capitalism to accomplish what is needed for their citizens. What makes their systems work is that their economic structure is based upon the needs versus capacity of it's citizens and businesses.

 

Pertaining to the question of race, I think there are people that voted for, and are supporting of him because of race—just as there are people that voted against, and are against him as president because of race. The fact that this is such an issue just goes to show that we are a country still in relative state of youth pertaining to our growth and legacy.

Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#110 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 This statement makes absolutely no sense what so ever!

I would say if you think healthcare is better in other countries, there is no reason why you can't go there and try it out for a few years and see if it is truly better.  Obviously you could move to Canada because people in Canada must make more money.... if you don't like the cold of Canada then England, France or Germany are options.  I just want someone to go to those other countries try it out and let me know.....
Once again, we're on the same page!  Weird.
Everyone has the option to move to a different country to try out their healthcare system and compare.  Just like they'll have the OPTION of using the US government's healthcare program or not to use it.  I think that point is being forgotten in this whole debate.  It's not mandatory, it's an option, a choice.  Choices are good, not having a choice (true socialism) would be bad. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#111 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

huskerfan_ia wrote:
Clinton had a budget surplus, I wasn't talking about that.

The deficit is the amount of debt, that is what I'm referring to.
If there was a surplus and it wasn't used to pay down the debt, then that means it was spent--which means even if there could have been a surplus, it evaporated the moment it was spent. During the Clinton years, not only was it spent--the government borrowed even more! Every year!

It's like earning $30k in a year and only having $29k in expenses--so you have a $1000 surplus. To celebrate, you then go out and spend $2000 on a new LCD TV. All the sudden you earned $30k and spent $31k and what originally looked like a $1000 surplus is now a $1000 deficit and you're even further in debt. You almost had your financial house in order but then you went out and spent the "extra" money rather than saving it or paying off some of your existing debt.

In short, if the government had a surplus and spent it on anything other than paying down the national debt, there was no longer a surplus the moment the money was spent on something else, which it was.

Another fallacy.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#112 | 69 days ago
bmcannon1 (+)

huskerfan_ia wrote:
Holy cow, a preacher said that, where did you see that clip?  Could you paste a link here or tell me what channel you saw that on?

Seriously, that's some pretty sick sh*t for anyone to say something like that.  Send me the info, I want to engage this sicko.
It was all over the news a few days ago. he did say it. Made me sick. A preacher of all peaple saying something like that.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#113 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
Sadly, you're right about the partisanship in this country ... more sad is that it's the only way to get things done in this country that we feel IS for the best.  I will say this, though (and you or anyone else can take it as an "us" vs. "them" argument if you want, but it's truly how I feel) ... I think that when it comes to "reaching across the aisle" and working together, Obama is far more open to the idea than his predecessor.  I think the "us" vs. "them" attitude came to a full-blown crest with Bush #2, and I know that for a long time I was labeled by many Bush-backers as "unpatriotic" and since I wasn't "with them", I was a bad American. 

As for the Socialism in this country ... well, we're NOT a capitalist nation, never have been and never will be.  I don't think capitalism alone can work in any nation (nor do I think socialism on its own can work).  I think what makes this country great and so successful is our adaptability and our way of blending BOTH ideals to make a system that works on so many levels.  Many will say that socialism has not worked in other nations, but how successful were we when we refused to implement socialist ideas into our society in the past (example being President Hoover and his laissez-faire style of governing before this country entered its greatest Depression ever)?  FDR came into the picture and introduced many socialist programs that helped pull this country out of that depression (not to say that the war didn't actually help do that, too ... but no ONE thing alone pulled us out).  I think that the blending of capitalist and socialist ideas has, historically, made this country great and kept it that way. 

(Sidenote - I don't think the Homeland Security Department qualifies as much as a socialist ideal ... that was just a violation of our personal rights set forth by the Constitution.  Not that I like defending Bush and what he did because I think that was actually a worse offense than socialism, but I don't see that as a socialist implementation on his part.)
Ok, no one is identifying our country as socialist or capitalist.  These are ideological principles to debate the solutions for the ills of our society.  It is good that we are neither, because we can apply any economic principle as a solution to a problem.  Our disagreement on issues isn't whether my guy or your guy is right, it's about which ideology best represents our core beliefs, and discussing them until you come to a solution.  That's one of the great things about our country.

The partisanship is exactly what the politicians want us to fight about.  As long as we're attacking each others guy, we'll not get to the root of the problem.  As long as we don't solve the problem, they are in power to implement more and more 'solutions' that don't work.

Homeland security is made up of thousands of employee that are employed by the government.  Private contractors can just as easily, and more efficiently, handle many of these jobs.  Its for that reason that it is in fact a good example.

As to the source of the partisanship, it started way before you or I were around, it just has become more heated over the last 20 years.  I refuse to play the blame game as to who started it, because it doesn't settle the issue(s) at hand.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#114 | 69 days ago
bmcannon1 (+)

huskerfan_ia wrote:
SAT Scores 2009:

Rank State Critical Reading Math Writing Combined
1 Iowa 610 615 588 1813
2 Wisconsin 594 608 582 1784
3 Minnesota 595 609 578 1782
4 Missouri 595 600 584 1779
5 Illinois 588 604 583 1775
6 Michigan 584 603 575 1762
7 South Dakota 589 600 569 1758
8 Nebraska 587 594 572 1753
9 North Dakota 590 593 566 1749
10 Kansas 581 589 564 1734
11 Kentucky 573 573 561 1707
12 Oklahoma 575 571 557 1703
13 Tennessee 571 565 565 1701
14 Arkansas 572 572 556 1700
15 Colorado 568 575 555 1698
16 Wyoming 567 568 550 1685
17 Mississippi 567 554 559 1680
18 Louisiana 563 558 555 1676
19 Alabama 557 552 549 1658
20 Utah 559 558 540 1657
21 New Mexico 553 546 534 1633
22 Ohio 537 546 523 1606
23 Montana 541 542 519 1602
24 Idaho 541 540 520 1601
25 Washington 524 531 507 1562
26 New Hampshire 523 523 510 1556
27 Massachusetts 514 523 510 1547
28 Oregon 523 525 499 1547
29 Vermont 518 518 506 1542
30 Connecticut 509 513 512 1534
31 Arizona 516 521 497 1534
32 Alaska 520 516 492 1528
33 Virginia 511 512 498 1521
34 California 500 513 498 1511
35 West Virginia 511 501 499 1511
36 All Students 501 515 493 1509
37 New Jersey 496 513 496 1505
38 Maryland 500 502 495 1497
39 Rhode Island 498 496 494 1488
40 North Carolina 495 511 480 1486
41 Nevada 501 505 479 1485
42 Indiana 496 507 480 1483
43 Delaware 495 498 484 1477
44 Pennsylvania 493 501 483 1477
45 Florida 497 498 480 1475
46 Texas 486 506 475 1467
47 New York 485 502 478 1465
48 Georgia 490 491 479 1460
49 South Carolina 486 496 470 1452
50 Hawaii 479 502 469 1450
51 Maine 468 467 455 1390
52 District of Columbia 466 451 461 1378


Seems to be working well in Iowa.
Source
LMAO.....Texas is 46'th in stupidity......that makes my day.
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#115 | 69 days ago

 bmcannon1 wrote:
It was all over the news a few days ago. he did say it. Made me sick. A preacher of all peaple saying something like that.
I didn't see it, I don't watch the news, I go find it.  

If anyone has a link to a story or a video I want to see it.

This man clearly does not represent Christian Conservatives.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#116 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

bmcannon1 wrote:
LMAO.....Texas is 46'th in stupidity......that makes my day.
I would say the fact that The District of Columbia is ranking dead last is a wonderful commentary on politics overall.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#117 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
Charles, that was started by some over zealous right wingers.  The national media has given President Obama a pretty easy time of it to this point.  In fact the relationship, besides Fox News, has been down right cozy up to this point.
"ya into Politics too MOOSER???
10

#118 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

oxbench wrote:
"ya into Politics too MOOSER???
I am into anything that affects my day to day life.
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#119 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
Once again, we're on the same page!  Weird.
Everyone has the option to move to a different country to try out their healthcare system and compare.  Just like they'll have the OPTION of using the US government's healthcare program or not to use it.  I think that point is being forgotten in this whole debate.  It's not mandatory, it's an option, a choice.  Choices are good, not having a choice (true socialism) would be bad. 
 Agreed.... right now here is the problem I see... that although we may start with a "choice", it won't be long until we are forced into a government program.  There are a lot of reasons but based on the way the current bill is written, the government will set standards for what a healthcare plan MUST have.  Your current employer may not be able to afford a health care plan on steriods and opt that it will be cheaper to pay the $ 3800. penalty for not offering healthcare as opposed to paying much more to offer it.  What happens next is you have all these people being shifted to a government run program whether they want to or not, therefore choice goes out the window.

Janet, you are very smart..... I know this makes sense to you...... and yes, it is scary that we have been agreeing lately... very scary...
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#120 | 69 days ago

 On a side note, it's time to get off the Q......  I need time for my blood pressure to regulate itself before my doctor's appointment.

We wouldn't want my doctor regulating my Q time.....heh, heh
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#121 | 69 days ago

 bmcannon1 wrote:
LMAO.....Texas is 46'th in stupidity......that makes my day.
 Kteach..... California comes in at a whopping 34th.... how much do they spend per student in CA?
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#122 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Ok, no one is identifying our country as socialist or capitalist.  These are ideological principles to debate the solutions for the ills of our society.  It is good that we are neither, because we can apply any economic principle as a solution to a problem.  Our disagreement on issues isn't whether my guy or your guy is right, it's about which ideology best represents our core beliefs, and discussing them until you come to a solution.  That's one of the great things about our country.

The partisanship is exactly what the politicians want us to fight about.  As long as we're attacking each others guy, we'll not get to the root of the problem.  As long as we don't solve the problem, they are in power to implement more and more 'solutions' that don't work.

Homeland security is made up of thousands of employee that are employed by the government.  Private contractors can just as easily, and more efficiently, handle many of these jobs.  Its for that reason that it is in fact a good example.

As to the source of the partisanship, it started way before you or I were around, it just has become more heated over the last 20 years.  I refuse to play the blame game as to who started it, because it doesn't settle the issue(s) at hand.
I'm not pointing finger as to who's to blame for the partisanship in this country.  Both parties do it, and both are to blame, as a general rule.  I'm simply saying that I think at was at its worst during Bush's administration.  I think that this country divided SO much during that time, more so than at any other point in recent history. 
If no one is identifying our nation as either socialist or capitalist, then why is the introduction of a more socialist-leaning program causing such an uproar?  For you, I understand it because you're against socialist programs ... period.  But you must say that most people who are crying foul about all of this are basing their argument on the "fact" that we're a capitalist nation, not a socialist one.  In fact, if we HAD to classify our nation in those types of terms, we'd be a fairly split mixture of the two.  Always have been.  And for as wonderful as capitalism has been for this country, socialist programs have benefited it equally as much, historically.  This inevitably will lead to partisanship and disagreements about which "side" is better ... that is our lot in life for being a nation that accepts different views and allows people to think/feel/believe whatever they'd like.  For as difficult (and frustrating) as this makes things at times, it's still better than the alternative.  It all goes back to the idea of having options/choices, and allowing us, as a people, the right to elect and support (or not) the leaders that we feel will make changes that suit our beliefs in how this country should be run.  Our government was founded on the principle that no ONE idea is right.  That's why we have the ability to adapt our laws and policies over time, if need be.  Our founding fathers realized that, as smart as they were, they didn't know everything, nor could they foresee the ways in which our nation and our world would change over time.  There are times when socialist ideas are better for this country, and times when they are not.  That's the beauty of this country ... we have the ability to adapt to the changing times, and thus adapt to the changing needs present in our society.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#123 | 69 days ago
bmcannon1 (+)

BOOBIES.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#124 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 Agreed.... right now here is the problem I see... that although we may start with a "choice", it won't be long until we are forced into a government program.  There are a lot of reasons but based on the way the current bill is written, the government will set standards for what a healthcare plan MUST have.  Your current employer may not be able to afford a health care plan on steriods and opt that it will be cheaper to pay the $ 3800. penalty for not offering healthcare as opposed to paying much more to offer it.  What happens next is you have all these people being shifted to a government run program whether they want to or not, therefore choice goes out the window.

Janet, you are very smart..... I know this makes sense to you...... and yes, it is scary that we have been agreeing lately... very scary...
Makes perfect sense.  However (you knew that was coming  lol), it could also swing things the opposite way and make privately-run healthcare providers shape up and offer their services at more reasonable rates so as not to lose business from employers. 

Beyond that, though ... hasn't one of the biggest arguments against the government healthcare plan been that its coverages would be sub-par, offer fewer options, and lessen the quality of care provided?  Why then would you think that the standards they will set would be so far-fetched and unattainable by the power-house privately-run healthcare providers?  I think the chances of that happening are SO slim that it's hardly even worth discussing it as a possibility.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#125 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
I am into anything that affects my day to day life.
Way to to go. I really got to Fashion my life to that sort. I kindda have alot of stuffs I'm not into like politics and Reigion...
5

#126 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
I'm not pointing finger as to who's to blame for the partisanship in this country.  Both parties do it, and both are to blame, as a general rule.  I'm simply saying that I think at was at its worst during Bush's administration.  I think that this country divided SO much during that time, more so than at any other point in recent history. 
If no one is identifying our nation as either socialist or capitalist, then why is the introduction of a more socialist-leaning program causing such an uproar?  For you, I understand it because you're against socialist programs ... period.  But you must say that most people who are crying foul about all of this are basing their argument on the "fact" that we're a capitalist nation, not a socialist one.  In fact, if we HAD to classify our nation in those types of terms, we'd be a fairly split mixture of the two.  Always have been.  And for as wonderful as capitalism has been for this country, socialist programs have benefited it equally as much, historically.  This inevitably will lead to partisanship and disagreements about which "side" is better ... that is our lot in life for being a nation that accepts different views and allows people to think/feel/believe whatever they'd like.  For as difficult (and frustrating) as this makes things at times, it's still better than the alternative.  It all goes back to the idea of having options/choices, and allowing us, as a people, the right to elect and support (or not) the leaders that we feel will make changes that suit our beliefs in how this country should be run.  Our government was founded on the principle that no ONE idea is right.  That's why we have the ability to adapt our laws and policies over time, if need be.  Our founding fathers realized that, as smart as they were, they didn't know everything, nor could they foresee the ways in which our nation and our world would change over time.  There are times when socialist ideas are better for this country, and times when they are not.  That's the beauty of this country ... we have the ability to adapt to the changing times, and thus adapt to the changing needs present in our society.
You're almost right, I'll tell you where you're wrong later,

But for now, I have to get back to work greasing the wheels of capitalism so the waste of socialism can continue.  (my answer to you is in that sentence, you're smart enough to figure it out.)
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#127 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
You're almost right, I'll tell you where you're wrong later,

But for now, I have to get back to work greasing the wheels of capitalism so the waste of socialism can continue.  (my answer to you is in that sentence, you're smart enough to figure it out.)
About time you got back to work!
Oh yeah, and while you're at it, don't forget to use some WD-40 on the wheels of your Condescention Machine. 
You jerk.  lol 
Enter the poll to see my answer
15

#128 | 69 days ago

 bmcannon1 wrote:
LMAO.....Texas is 46'th in stupidity......that makes my day.
You have it backwards.  The chart is showing the smartest on down.  Texas is 46th in smarts, but they are 7th in stupidity.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#129 | 69 days ago
rileyjames47 (+)

rileyjames47 wrote:
 What do you expect Vin ? Can't have any support for a President, who is actually TRYING to change things for the better. I saw a clip of some preacher today who said, "I am going to pray for Obamas death and that he goes to hell".  All the freaks are out in full force everywhere you look.  The above example is so flawed and unrealistic it is not worth commenting on.
I am sorry, but the Socialism cries are not evident to me. Something needs to be changed and that does not mean it is always Socialism.
12

#130 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
About time you got back to work!
Oh yeah, and while you're at it, don't forget to use some WD-40 on the wheels of your Condescention Machine. 
You jerk.  lol 
You love me and you know it. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
13

#131 | 69 days ago
sherribaby88 (+)

wonder if obama was in HIS class... in my opinion, Obama's plan sucks, and we all know, and he will find out, that he really doesn't run the country, it is congress, and they all need to be replaced, this is just what I feel about it.....
9

#132 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
I'm not pointing finger as to who's to blame for the partisanship in this country.  Both parties do it, and both are to blame, as a general rule.  I'm simply saying that I think at was at its worst during Bush's administration.  I think that this country divided SO much during that time, more so than at any other point in recent history. 
If no one is identifying our nation as either socialist or capitalist, then why is the introduction of a more socialist-leaning program causing such an uproar?  For you, I understand it because you're against socialist programs ... period.  But you must say that most people who are crying foul about all of this are basing their argument on the "fact" that we're a capitalist nation, not a socialist one.  In fact, if we HAD to classify our nation in those types of terms, we'd be a fairly split mixture of the two.  Always have been.  And for as wonderful as capitalism has been for this country, socialist programs have benefited it equally as much, historically.  This inevitably will lead to partisanship and disagreements about which "side" is better ... that is our lot in life for being a nation that accepts different views and allows people to think/feel/believe whatever they'd like.  For as difficult (and frustrating) as this makes things at times, it's still better than the alternative.  It all goes back to the idea of having options/choices, and allowing us, as a people, the right to elect and support (or not) the leaders that we feel will make changes that suit our beliefs in how this country should be run.  Our government was founded on the principle that no ONE idea is right.  That's why we have the ability to adapt our laws and policies over time, if need be.  Our founding fathers realized that, as smart as they were, they didn't know everything, nor could they foresee the ways in which our nation and our world would change over time.  There are times when socialist ideas are better for this country, and times when they are not.  That's the beauty of this country ... we have the ability to adapt to the changing times, and thus adapt to the changing needs present in our society.
I love most of what you say here.  The only item I would like to say is different is how divided the country is.  With so many citizens, you are going to have almost as many opinions.  The fact that as many people voting that can generally line up into (Mostly) 2 parties is amazing.  I am non-partisan, I like some of the policies from Democrats, some from Republicans, and I vote accordingly.  During the elections when Bush was elected, the numbers were very close on both sides, almost half (or just over half) for, and almost half against.  

Kinda funny, Bush and the Republicans united Americans into voting for Obama.  (53.4% of over 125 million voters) The last time a win was close to that percentage was 53.9% of 90.5 million voters with Bush Sr. over Dukakis in 1988.

Where I see voters most divided was when 19% of 103.7 million voters voted for Perot (independent) vs Clinton and Bush Sr in 1992.

(Figures obtained from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html)
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#133 | 69 days ago

 oxbench wrote:
"ya into Politics too MOOSER???
HI
5

#134 | 69 days ago

 Oddfool wrote:
I love most of what you say here.  The only item I would like to say is different is how divided the country is.  With so many citizens, you are going to have almost as many opinions.  The fact that as many people voting that can generally line up into (Mostly) 2 parties is amazing.  I am non-partisan, I like some of the policies from Democrats, some from Republicans, and I vote accordingly.  During the elections when Bush was elected, the numbers were very close on both sides, almost half (or just over half) for, and almost half against.  

Kinda funny, Bush and the Republicans united Americans into voting for Obama.  (53.4% of over 125 million voters) The last time a win was close to that percentage was 53.9% of 90.5 million voters with Bush Sr. over Dukakis in 1988.

Where I see voters most divided was when 19% of 103.7 million voters voted for Perot (independent) vs Clinton and Bush Sr in 1992.

(Figures obtained from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html)
Of course, popular vote is not what elects a president, but Electoral College votes.  Obama had won with 67.8% of the Electoral College.    Bush Sr had won with 79.3% in '88.   And good ole Perot had a whopping 0 Electoral votes.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#135 | 69 days ago

 Daniel_and_Becca wrote:
WTF  this poll  is getting heated   lol   i am staying out of this. bye the way,  why are you all avoiding my comment (WTF we are in more debit then ever under President Obama.)  it must be true lol
You are totaly right the 1st 4 days of this president the national debt has risin so much it cost more than the last 4 presidents combined.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#136 | 69 days ago

 CRAZY_LADY wrote:
   
Moony 1
11

#137 | 69 days ago

Name calling is not "Un-American" ... on the contrary, it's the basis of our freedom:  The Freedom to speak ... even if it makes an ass out of us. 

To accuse someone of disagreeing with a political ideology, merely based on race ... is as ackbasswards as being against someone's political ideology merely because of race!

Socialism is great!  ................ If you don't make a s*** ton of money! 
Capitalism is great! ................ If you make a s*** ton of money!
Communism is great! .............. If you happen to be "that guy!"
Democracy is great .......... If you're not "that guy!"

If I wanna say "F America" (which I don't) it's just as American as saying "God Bless America!"  For two reasons:  

1.  We're Fn Free! 
2.  Our forefathers stole this country from it's rightful owners to begin with!

NOW ... STFU B****es and take the Obama bashing like grown men/women!  Nobody went and changed the misspelling of GW or Dubya or any of that s***, and nobody really gives a F that I call our former fearless leader George-Elmer W. Bush-Fudd!!!

I need some water balloons!!  F'ers! 

Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#138 | 69 days ago

 RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:

Name calling is not "Un-American" ... on the contrary, it's the basis of our freedom:  The Freedom to speak ... even if it makes an ass out of us. 

To accuse someone of disagreeing with a political ideology, merely based on race ... is as ackbasswards as being against someone's political ideology merely because of race!

Socialism is great!  ................ If you don't make a s*** ton of money! 
Capitalism is great! ................ If you make a s*** ton of money!
Communism is great! .............. If you happen to be "that guy!"
Democracy is great .......... If you're not "that guy!"

If I wanna say "F America" (which I don't) it's just as American as saying "God Bless America!"  For two reasons:  

1.  We're Fn Free! 
2.  Our forefathers stole this country from it's rightful owners to begin with!

NOW ... STFU B****es and take the Obama bashing like grown men/women!  Nobody went and changed the misspelling of GW or Dubya or any of that s***, and nobody really gives a F that I call our former fearless leader George-Elmer W. Bush-Fudd!!!

I need some water balloons!!  F'ers! 

NOW ... STFU B****es and take the Obama bashing like grown men/women!

Nice

<Hands Mr McWiggle 6 water balloons and pats him on the head.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#139 | 69 days ago

 RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:

Name calling is not "Un-American" ... on the contrary, it's the basis of our freedom:  The Freedom to speak ... even if it makes an ass out of us. 

To accuse someone of disagreeing with a political ideology, merely based on race ... is as ackbasswards as being against someone's political ideology merely because of race!

Socialism is great!  ................ If you don't make a s*** ton of money! 
Capitalism is great! ................ If you make a s*** ton of money!
Communism is great! .............. If you happen to be "that guy!"
Democracy is great .......... If you're not "that guy!"

If I wanna say "F America" (which I don't) it's just as American as saying "God Bless America!"  For two reasons:  

1.  We're Fn Free! 
2.  Our forefathers stole this country from it's rightful owners to begin with!

NOW ... STFU B****es and take the Obama bashing like grown men/women!  Nobody went and changed the misspelling of GW or Dubya or any of that s***, and nobody really gives a F that I call our former fearless leader George-Elmer W. Bush-Fudd!!!

I need some water balloons!!  F'ers! 

F*ck you, McWiggle! 
I'm not saying that because I necessarily disagree with you, but just because I'm free, and I CAN! 

(OK, and because it's fun!  lol)
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#140 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
I would say the fact that The District of Columbia is ranking dead last is a wonderful commentary on politics overall.
You know that most of the actual population of DC is income deficient minorities.  You also know that most of the congressmen and women don't actually live in DC, but in suburbs of Maryland and Virginia.  But nice try.
9

#141 | 69 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
You know that most of the actual population of DC is income deficient minorities.  You also know that most of the congressmen and women don't actually live in DC, but in suburbs of Maryland and Virginia.  But nice try.
Income deficient minorities = low test scores? 

I grew up in a poor neighborhood, racially we were a minority, and we were poor.  My Dad worked for his parents for a small wage, maintaining loyalty to the family over looking for a higher paying job.  His choice, no excuses, just the way things were.  As whites moved out of the neighborhood in the early 70's, we stayed, because mostly that's where our family lived.

So you could say I was an income deficient minority, but you'd never here me use that as an excuse for a low test score.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#142 | 69 days ago

 janet011685 wrote:
F*ck you, McWiggle! 
I'm not saying that because I necessarily disagree with you, but just because I'm free, and I CAN! 

(OK, and because it's fun!  lol)
LMAO!!! 

Have I told you lately you're a really Fn funny B****!!  
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#143 | 69 days ago
mooser58 (+)

I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
You know that most of the actual population of DC is income deficient minorities.  You also know that most of the congressmen and women don't actually live in DC, but in suburbs of Maryland and Virginia.  But nice try.
Aware to a point.  But then if I acknowledged knowing that my post loses all its punch.
Enter the poll to see my answer
11

#144 | 69 days ago

 rileyjames47 wrote:
 What do you expect Vin ? Can't have any support for a President, who is actually TRYING to change things for the better. I saw a clip of some preacher today who said, "I am going to pray for Obamas death and that he goes to hell".  All the freaks are out in full force everywhere you look.  The above example is so flawed and unrealistic it is not worth commenting on.
For anyone who's interested, thanks to my trusty assistant bmcannon, I found the following:

Link to interview

It takes about 2 minutes to view it all, but only 10 seconds to decide this guy is a piece of crap.

Here's a link to the church's website

Faithful Word Baptist Church

According to the news report linked above, the church has about 30 members.  They also are an 'independent' baptist church, basically they don't belong to any governing church body. 

"Faithful Word Baptist Church is a totally independent Baptist church"  Link


Make you own judgments, I think this guy is a piece of crap, and he hides behind a faith that in no way parallels his beliefs.
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#145 | 69 days ago

 (Edited by ojekeme1)
carlalbert64 wrote:
 This statement makes absolutely no sense what so ever!

I would say if you think healthcare is better in other countries, there is no reason why you can't go there and try it out for a few years and see if it is truly better.  Obviously you could move to Canada because people in Canada must make more money.... if you don't like the cold of Canada then England, France or Germany are options.  I just want someone to go to those other countries try it out and let me know.....
Maybe my statement makes no sense to you because you are among the minority that live in the world unaffected by widespread job losses in the manufacturing/construction sectors or the criminalization of the urban male population or record numbers of housing foreclosures.

Again, I don't know where you got all of this nonsense about me advocating the methods or health-care of other countries. America has the best, most advanced health-care in the world; but that care is not accessible to all Americans.

Maybe if you could read (or would read) my posts; then, you wouldn't be making these type statements.

Re-read my original post; and the post that this is in response to would make perfect sense. Unless that is, I am the only American (or FAN IQ member) who has: (all of these statements either currently do apply or have applied in the past to my reality)

- Lost a "good American middle class job" because the company that he/she was employed by moved its operations to another country or state that offered that company free land and/or huge tax abatement's and was forced to re-enter the workforce in essentially the same type job at more than a 25% pay cut.

- Lost a "good American middle class job" because the company that he/she was employed by moved its operations to another country or state that offered that company free land and/or huge tax abatement's and was forced to work a job through a temporary staffing company for greater than six months with no health-care, no personal leave and/or no savings plan.

- Attempted to start a small business and decided that the only health-care that you could afford is a bottle of Vick's Rub, a bag of cough drops, and a box of Band-aids.

- Lost a "good American middle class job" because the company that he/she was employed by moved its operations to another country or state that offered that company free land and/or huge tax abatement's and tried to COBRA your health benefits only to later have to choose between making your COBRA payment or paying rent/car note or food.

- Live in a community where I can walk (not drive, hear about from a friend, neighbor or co-worker, etc.) and see the homes of "middle class working Americans" (not the people who bought 4BR.,  2 bath homes when they could only afford a 3BR., 1-1/2 bath) whose homes are either in foreclosure or already vacant because their "good American middle class jobs" are gone after 15+ years of building a family.

These are the very reasons that I voted for Obama. For me these issues are not fancy campaign retoric, left/right wing political speak, or even a socialist agenda but reality in its purest sense. This is the America that I and many of my contemporaries wake up to everyday. Carl I'm sorry to stain your purist vision of America with my dark reality.
Enter the poll to see my answer
5

#146 | 69 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
You know that most of the actual population of DC is income deficient minorities.  You also know that most of the congressmen and women don't actually live in DC, but in suburbs of Maryland and Virginia.  But nice try.
Thanks for saying that. Anytime I mention minorities I'm atteact as trying to start the next "Civil war"!!!
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#147 | 69 days ago

 mooser58 wrote:
Aware to a point.  But then if I acknowledged knowing that my post loses all its punch.
I understood very well what you were saying Mooser; and with the nutbags that represent us on both sides of the aisle that staement could never lose its punch!!!   
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#148 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
I will not debate with anyone ignorant enough to start out saying my beliefs are based on race.

I can't believe I even wasted the ink to type this.
Walk a mile in my shoes and maybe your ink wouldn't be wasted.
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#149 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 The whole matter of fact is that Clarence Thomas' ism was a creation of liberal opponents..... 

Sorry.... lost your argument in my partisanship...... what was it again....

I think you will find that I, like Scott, am not a fan of either political party.  I am an American first conservative second and do my best to stick to conservative principles...... so.... big government and infringements on our liberty I am opposed to regardless of the party that is promoting it.....
At what job in america is it acceptable to say to a woman shoe me yours and I'll show you mine. That is not liberal B.S. that is being as my grandma would say "out of pocket"!
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#150 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
Walk a mile in my shoes and maybe your ink wouldn't be wasted.
Another ignorant post.  Try again.
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#151 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Another ignorant post.  Try again.
Scott, I never once stated that you were, are, will be a racist. In most post i refered to the "treatment of Obama" in these posts and in the media. However, if you insist on wearing that hat... Wear it well.

It is quite obvious that you have not been directly affected by the issue of race in the same manner that I have. So, to speak of things of which you have no knowledge of, is the purest definition of ignorance.

Again I say, walk a mile in my shoes and maybe you ink wil not be wasted.
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#152 | 69 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
Scott, I never once stated that you were, are, will be a racist. In most post i refered to the "treatment of Obama" in these posts and in the media. However, if you insist on wearing that hat... Wear it well.

It is quite obvious that you have not been directly affected by the issue of race in the same manner that I have. So, to speak of things of which you have no knowledge of, is the purest definition of ignorance.

Again I say, walk a mile in my shoes and maybe you ink wil not be wasted.
Race wasn't the issue in this thread until you brought it up.

Political ideology has nothing to do with race.  Until someone puts it in the argument.  When you put it in an argument, you're calling someone a racist.  That is ignorance.  Stick to the issues.  When someone comes forward and bashes our president because of race, you and I will stand side by side to shout him or her down.

By the way, don't assume I have no knowledge of the plights of minorities in our country, that is also ignorance.  You have no idea what you're talking about.  If you're assuming I'm just some white trash ignorant hick, you'd be as guilty of stereotyping as someone who uses race to make judgments.  You haven't walked in my shoes either.
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#153 | 69 days ago

 The realities are we already have a set of socialist system in our government that predates our current administration. At top is our educational system. If we get or ever received public education its socialist, if you receive the mail from the United States postal service its socialist system, if you ever drive on public roads its a socialist system, if you ever received a tax return its a socialist system. last and not least if you had sex also children with your sister or cousins and for some your brother , YOUR AN INBRED,,,see hoe socialism works ...if you keep in the family it generally turn against you. BUB BA Lets find that Trillion GEORGE spent then we can talk about Socialism.








GO YANKEES.
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#154 | 69 days ago

The New Orleans Saints and the New York Jets are riding the escalator in the latest edition of the ESPN.com NFL Power Rankings.

The Jets have vaulted from a No. 23 ranking in Week 1 to No. 16, according to a poll of our experts. Rookie Mark Sanchez's crew might be able to flirt with the penthouse should it upend the seemingly vulnerable New England Patriots when the AFC East rivals meet in Week 2.

The Saints, who have moved up six places to No. 12, could make a bid for the upper echelon if they can upset the host Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday. The Eagles are part of the upper crust that has remained unchanged in the 2009 rankings -- the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Patriots, the New York Giants and the Eagles rank Nos. 1 through 4, respectively, once again.

The biggest tumbler this week: The Carolina Panthers have fallen from No. 14 to No. 22. One notable change: The Detroit Lions (No. 31) have leapfrogged the St. Louis Rams (No. 32) to escape the rankings' lowest rung.Giants
10

#155 | 69 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 Kteach..... California comes in at a whopping 34th.... how much do they spend per student in CA?
Dead last in spending per student....what's your point? lol
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#156 | 69 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
I agree, in fact if you check the link I posted you'll see that Iowa's participation in the SAT is very low.  Most students here take the ACT, which is where I thought you'd strike back (but apparently you didn't click the link, no matter, I'm prepared with ACT data as well ).

I understand your argument, but do you have data to support that Iowans (or any other state in the top 20 or so) has an inordinate number of kids taking these prep classes?  Is there data that suggests how much test scores improve while taking these prep courses?  I do know this, all Iowans have the opportunity to take prep courses for college, they're called high school.  We have the best teachers in the country, They come here because the pay is good, they'll be rewarded for success, and the quality of life is top notch (a little biased there).  There are exceptions of course, but there always are.

My wife started out teaching in a different state, she loved it there, and the pay was excellent.  You'd have to talk to her on the specific differences, but she says Iowa is a better place to teach kids because there's less distractions for teachers, and they're able to more freely do what they do best, teach.  When you have an environment that in more conducive to teaching, and you reward your teachers for results, you get better results.

And yes Carl, the NEA here is a challenge, but Iowa is a 'Right to Work' state, and that weakens the power unions have over employers.  The dues for teachers in Iowa is $70 per month.  My wife says the only benefit is some type of malpractice insurance (maybe Becky can explain that better).  In her school, only half or less of the teachers belong.
I know what I know.....find your own stats and links. lol I got enough work to do teaching our future.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#157 | 68 days ago

 OK  now how do we fix all the above. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#158 | 68 days ago

 Football season week 2 coming soon yessssssssss  we all agree on this    lol
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#159 | 68 days ago

 The Media wouldn't tell us the truth ,because they can't find the truth on oboma and Oboma has covered his tracks well .And if you would look into his college records.And you will find them concelled from our eyes ,why does he have something to hide ,I believe if all his records were publicly seen you would find out he went to college on a student visa hehe and is not a AMRICAN at all.
Enter the poll to see my answer
5

#160 | 68 days ago

 ojekeme1 wrote:
I believe the treatment of Obama is clearly based upon race.

I believe the insensitivity to the issues that he is most adamant are racially motivated. (As demonstrated by your complete lack of acknowledgement of the millions of Americans who have had to live under the conditions that i state in my original post. Like i said I am willing to debate the ISSUES any time.)
What Race is he His Mother Was WHITE,His FATHER was BLACK     ,Under US   programs you can't say black or white ,under the guidelines of everything I file with the Government he would have to say other.
Enter the poll to see my answer
2

#161 | 68 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
I know what I know.....find your own stats and links. lol I got enough work to do teaching our future.
Typical lib, have someone else do the work for you. 

I did a search and couldn't find any data to support your point.  But I did learn that these college test prep classes are available in every state.  So kids in every state are able to participate.
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#162 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Typical lib, have someone else do the work for you. 

I did a search and couldn't find any data to support your point.  But I did learn that these college test prep classes are available in every state.  So kids in every state are able to participate.
Hey....it's not my work. YOU are the one who wanted to know the links and stuff. I'm shocked that when you did the search you found NOTHING....absolutely shocked.

Test prep classes are available in every state, but most cost lots of money and the ones that don't aren't worth very much.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#163 | 68 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
Hey....it's not my work. YOU are the one who wanted to know the links and stuff. I'm shocked that when you did the search you found NOTHING....absolutely shocked.

Test prep classes are available in every state, but most cost lots of money and the ones that don't aren't worth very much.
So are you saying Iowans have more money than people in other states?  Income statistics say otherwise.  Average incomes in Iowa are $6,000 per year less than in California for example. 

So there still isn't a statistic that supports your contention that Iowans score better because of prep classes.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#164 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
So are you saying Iowans have more money than people in other states?  Income statistics say otherwise.  Average incomes in Iowa are $6,000 per year less than in California for example. 

So there still isn't a statistic that supports your contention that Iowans score better because of prep classes.
Scott.....shut up. lol
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#165 | 68 days ago

 (Edited by huskerfan_ia)
kteacher wrote:
Scott.....shut up. lol
Edit:  Bite me. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#166 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Edit:  Bite me. 
NO thank you!
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#167 | 68 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
NO thank you!
Tree dwelling toe sniffer. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#168 | 68 days ago
d29point9 (+)

This WAS a culturally relevent poll - Just look at what you kids have done with it, LMAO.
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#169 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
So are you saying Iowans have more money than people in other states?  Income statistics say otherwise.  Average incomes in Iowa are $6,000 per year less than in California for example. 

So there still isn't a statistic that supports your contention that Iowans score better because of prep classes.
That statistic is a little misleading.....The only reason it averages out to $6,000 more for California is because Paris Hilton is a resident.....

Sorry, Paris hasn't been mentioned in this thread for a while, so I thought I'd get her back into it...
Enter the poll to see my answer
12

#170 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Tree dwelling toe sniffer. 
Obviously you don't know me well or you would know I don't have a green thumb nor do I like being around gross feet.------Butt Nugget Arguer!
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#171 | 68 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
Obviously you don't know me well or you would know I don't have a green thumb nor do I like being around gross feet.------Butt Nugget Arguer!
Tree dweller = monkey
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#172 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Tree dweller = monkey
So....you are calling me a monkey?  That is rather bold. Good thing monkeys are cool and kick total a$$.
Enter the poll to see my answer
9

#173 | 68 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
So....you are calling me a monkey?  That is rather bold. Good thing monkeys are cool and kick total a$$.
And ...

They fling poo!  
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#174 | 68 days ago

 RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
And ...

They fling poo!  
Good point!
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#175 | 68 days ago
d29point9 (+)

kteacher wrote:
So....you are calling me a monkey?  That is rather bold. Good thing monkeys are cool and kick total a$$.
I know that Dodger fans SMELL like monkeys......does THAT count??

(Looks for those water balloons from the other day - I think I might need them, LMAO!!)
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#176 | 68 days ago

 RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
And ...

They fling poo!  
And monkey's are socialists....  
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#177 | 68 days ago

 OK forum members.......no cracking jokes when I'm drinking my coffee!
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#178 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Income deficient minorities = low test scores? 

I grew up in a poor neighborhood, racially we were a minority, and we were poor.  My Dad worked for his parents for a small wage, maintaining loyalty to the family over looking for a higher paying job.  His choice, no excuses, just the way things were.  As whites moved out of the neighborhood in the early 70's, we stayed, because mostly that's where our family lived.

So you could say I was an income deficient minority, but you'd never here me use that as an excuse for a low test score.

Perhaps you grew up in a special situation.  However in DC as in many economically depressed areas....

Lower tax base = less $$$ = less to spend on quality teachers and supplies = better chance for lower quality of education.

Bottom line is this... I've always heard the students who do the best, no matter where they are are the one's whose parents are actively involved in their education and helping them at home.  If your daddy is already in jail for dealing drugs and your mom works 3 jobs to make ends meet, who is there to help you with your algebra homework?  Even if it's not that bad, chances are they don't have much of an education either, so mom looks at you and says, "Sorry hon, I have no idea about this stuff, ask dad.", and dad says, "No way buddy, I dropped out in 9th grade to work after grandpa died."

You probably did well because your folks were like mine, already well educated and involved in your education.  I'm not saying that all poor people aren't educated, but if they were, (except for this current economy), why don't they have a better job?  Yes some people with an education and a decent job decide to stay living where they are, but my family moved to the suburbs when we finally could and we weren't that far from our relatives.  One of the reasons was a better educational system.

When the students don't have the parental leg-up, they rely even more on the system.  When the system they are in is already behind because of the economy of the area, those kids will fall behind and continue the cycle.  They just need some hope and funny I think that's all the President was trying to give them last week when he spoke to them.
7

#179 | 68 days ago

 NorseHeathen wrote:
OK forum members.......no cracking jokes when I'm drinking my coffee!
Just get that IV inserted, and it will be harder to squirt coffee through your nose.
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#180 | 68 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:

Perhaps you grew up in a special situation.  However in DC as in many economically depressed areas....

Lower tax base = less $$$ = less to spend on quality teachers and supplies = better chance for lower quality of education.

Bottom line is this... I've always heard the students who do the best, no matter where they are are the one's whose parents are actively involved in their education and helping them at home.  If your daddy is already in jail for dealing drugs and your mom works 3 jobs to make ends meet, who is there to help you with your algebra homework?  Even if it's not that bad, chances are they don't have much of an education either, so mom looks at you and says, "Sorry hon, I have no idea about this stuff, ask dad.", and dad says, "No way buddy, I dropped out in 9th grade to work after grandpa died."

You probably did well because your folks were like mine, already well educated and involved in your education.  I'm not saying that all poor people aren't educated, but if they were, (except for this current economy), why don't they have a better job?  Yes some people with an education and a decent job decide to stay living where they are, but my family moved to the suburbs when we finally could and we weren't that far from our relatives.  One of the reasons was a better educational system.

When the students don't have the parental leg-up, they rely even more on the system.  When the system they are in is already behind because of the economy of the area, those kids will fall behind and continue the cycle.  They just need some hope and funny I think that's all the President was trying to give them last week when he spoke to them.

Washington DC is among the top states in spending per student.



According to this article, the expenditure is over $14,000 per student.

By the way, my Dad was an average HS graduate and no help, and my mom dropped out of school and went back to get her GED later in life, so no, there weren't any cozy little family tutoring sessions in our house.

Bootstraps baby, everyone has them, they just need to choose to pull themselves up by them.  One thing my folks did teach me was personal responsibility, something we as a nation aren't doing very well.  And yes, kudos to Obama for giving that message, let's hope it trickles down and makes a difference.

Making excuses for people because of their socioeconomic status does nothing to encourage personal responsibility.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#181 | 68 days ago

 OK, fans! Here I go pff on my lillte "soap box". We have a blended society which means that there is a cooperagtion between private enterprise and the US Government involvement. These activities are all intermeshed.
Here'a an example of an issue confronting us now: Obamamcare should be tailored and pared down to meet specific gaps in current conditions where healthcare plans and programs exists. For instance, during the periods of unemployment where individuals lose their coverage. Most insurance companies don't allow for pre-existing conditions. Numerous companies cain't afford medical benefits for their employees.
Obamacare should go on and fill tghese gaps, and allow the current system to continue.
My biggest concern is that Obamacare will turn out like the prescription medication plan did, and raise costs for medical coverage
7

#182 | 68 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Washington DC is among the top states in spending per student.



According to this article, the expenditure is over $14,000 per student.

By the way, my Dad was an average HS graduate and no help, and my mom dropped out of school and went back to get her GED later in life, so no, there weren't any cozy little family tutoring sessions in our house.

Bootstraps baby, everyone has them, they just need to choose to pull themselves up by them.  One thing my folks did teach me was personal responsibility, something we as a nation aren't doing very well.  And yes, kudos to Obama for giving that message, let's hope it trickles down and makes a difference.

Making excuses for people because of their socioeconomic status does nothing to encourage personal responsibility.
I don't wear boots...

But in all seriousness, tickle me silly, I did no research and would've assumed they did not have the tax base to spend as much.  All I remember from a trip to innercity DC were crack busts and a very depressed looking area.  I know the high school I graduated from had some very high scores and has a very high tax base to choose from.  Perhaps they don't spend the $$ wisely in DC.
4

#183 | 68 days ago

 100% socialism/communism has never worked and never will.  Every society will have some aspects of capitalism in it.  In the same way, every society will have some elements of socialism.  Where you see reward taken away/diminished you see decay and apathy towards problems that exist.
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#184 | 68 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
I don't wear boots...

But in all seriousness, tickle me silly, I did no research and would've assumed they did not have the tax base to spend as much.  All I remember from a trip to innercity DC were crack busts and a very depressed looking area.  I know the high school I graduated from had some very high scores and has a very high tax base to choose from.  Perhaps they don't spend the $$ wisely in DC.
That's the summary of the linked article, money is misspent.  It's a sad state of affairs in DC with the education system there.  We as a society to should be embarrassed and outraged by the performance there.  The dollars spent in DC (someone correct me if I'm wrong) are primarily federal dollars.

Many alternative schools have been attempted with much success in DC.  Why they're not doing more of that I don't know.  But it is sad.

You should really look into getting some boots (not cowboy boots, real man boots).  The chicks dig em.  ( I think...)
Enter the poll to see my answer
3

#185 | 68 days ago

 d29point9 wrote:
I know that Dodger fans SMELL like monkeys......does THAT count??

(Looks for those water balloons from the other day - I think I might need them, LMAO!!)
See...somehow I think what you were smelling at the time was your upper lip.....but don't worry about it......that sort of thing always happens to Giants fans.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#186 | 68 days ago

 RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
LMAO!!! 

Have I told you lately you're a really Fn funny B****!!  
And you just ADORE me for it! 
(No matter what you might say to the contrary.  lol)
Enter the poll to see my answer
5

#187 | 66 days ago

 I_Bleed_Purple wrote:
OK, however there are many different motivators for people to work, do a good job, enjoy being productive, etc.  The only motivator is not money.  Some people feel rewarded by their income, some by helping someone else, some by simply doing a good job, some by a sense of accomplishment, some by their special ability, some from being able to be productive and some from recognition.

So what this boils down to is, conservatives pretty much only feel reward in jobs by their income alone.  That's pretty sad if you ask me.

That's why that analogy breaks down, not every student (although most) are not simply motivated by the desire for a good grade.
AMEN to that! Let me tell you, teaching would be SO much easier if every student was "simply motivated by the desire for a good grade." I don't think that's true even on the highest levels, in graduate school, and much less so in K-12. And for those students for whom it is true... they are taking a purely capitalistic approach to school-- they are only obsessed with their grade, and so every single class will be filled with questions from them such as "How many points is this worth?" and "Will this be on the test?" and God forbid you have an activity that DOESN'T count for a grade-- then they (if they realize this) have no motivation whatsoever to participate. But in reality teachers do not have time to grade every single thing a student does or produces and everything shouldn't have to be a grade. Learning should be intrinsically motivated, that is, one should want to learn for the sake of learning and the opportunities it can open to you, not purely for the commodity of the grade.

Also, teachers are probably the best example (along with police and firefighters) of people who work hard for just about every reason EXCEPT the money!

Last point, the system describe in this economics class sounds much more like communism than the commonly accepted definition of socialism (there is a difference).
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#188 | 66 days ago

 kteacher wrote:
OK....I'm just singling out the last part of your rant post......."...give them performance pay in their contracts to encourage them to excel. This comes from the NEA..."

Hmmmm.....yeah.....here's the thing --NEA is not such a big supporter of performance pay...since there really isn't a fair way to do this. Sure you can take test scores...but given the fact that each state has their own state education standards and test, not really a good way to base pay.
Indeed, to elaborate on what Becky said (as I'm a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the NEA-- which makes me part of the problem and not the solution according to many conservative pundits)-- the NEA does support higher teacher pay, obviously, although their main drive now is for a mandatory $40,000 starting salary. The greatest inequity in teacher salaries is the fact that teachers are paid the least when they work the hardest-- their first five years in the profession. The job becomes easier, and the pay higher, with experience-- for the ones who hang in there, which is less than half! Therefore teachers are actually another example that works against the theory of "harder work = more pay."

But as she said, the NEA is officially against performance pay, at least any current system thereof, because there is no fair and equitable means of it yet. The simplest and worst option is to pay bonuses based on increases in standardized test scores, which, beyond just the impossibility of leveling the playing field to make it fair for everyone, also increases the likelihood that teachers will commit the cardinal sin of "teaching to the test."

Also, the NEA's official statement is they are nonpartisan and will support any candidate who is pro-public education. It just seems to work out that 9 out of 10 of those candidates are Democrats... and the other one's an Independent... take it for what it's worth, but I tend to agree with them.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#189 | 65 days ago

 Oddfool wrote:
I love most of what you say here.  The only item I would like to say is different is how divided the country is.  With so many citizens, you are going to have almost as many opinions.  The fact that as many people voting that can generally line up into (Mostly) 2 parties is amazing.  I am non-partisan, I like some of the policies from Democrats, some from Republicans, and I vote accordingly.  During the elections when Bush was elected, the numbers were very close on both sides, almost half (or just over half) for, and almost half against.  

Kinda funny, Bush and the Republicans united Americans into voting for Obama.  (53.4% of over 125 million voters) The last time a win was close to that percentage was 53.9% of 90.5 million voters with Bush Sr. over Dukakis in 1988.

Where I see voters most divided was when 19% of 103.7 million voters voted for Perot (independent) vs Clinton and Bush Sr in 1992.

(Figures obtained from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html)
I truly believe politicians, and talk-radio/political-TV hosts,  try to divide us more than we really are. I think the American public in general is more of a bell curve, with 10% on the far left, 10% on the far right, 50% in a big hump in the middle and the remaining 30% in between.
Enter the poll to see my answer
8

#190 | 65 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I truly believe politicians, and talk-radio/political-TV hosts,  try to divide us more than we really are. I think the American public in general is more of a bell curve, with 10% on the far left, 10% on the far right, 50% in a big hump in the middle and the remaining 30% in between.
In the past, I would definitely agree with the bell curve association.  Unfortunately, I see the top leveling out and expanding to whereas it's now more of the shape of a hill rather than a bell.  And, unfotunately, the top of the hill is greatly comprised with those who are non-active and in the political process.  I also see the level of apathy changing as the affects of the economy gets worse (should it do so).  If it does, politicians (regardless of political affiliation) are really going to start feeling the heat.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#191 | 65 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I truly believe politicians, and talk-radio/political-TV hosts,  try to divide us more than we really are. I think the American public in general is more of a bell curve, with 10% on the far left, 10% on the far right, 50% in a big hump in the middle and the remaining 30% in between.
 I haven't thought about it in terms of a bell curve, although based on the attendance at the rally in DC last weekend approaching 2 million people, I would guess that more of us agree than we are lead to believe.

I do think that people are getting more opinionated, I'm not sure if it due to politicians and more radio/TV political pundits getting everyone wound up.    I would put this out there.... remember the silent majority?  I believe the silent majority are becoming the not so silent majority.  They are tired of the direction the politicians are taking this Country and are finally fed up enough to make their voices heard.   Pick your topic, illegal immigration, excessive spending, taxed to the limit, prayer not being allowed in school.... there are enough issues that the people have had enough!

Just my take.....
Enter the poll to see my answer
7

#192 | 65 days ago

 You definitely have a relevant point.  I attribute a great part of it to the ability to interact through forums such as this one.  Granted, the interactions in here are very benign compared to other forums I've seen--the worst are probably the MySpace Politics and Religion forums==that place is a rhetorical meat-grinder.  I call it, the "keyboard commando" syndrome; whereas even the dumbest, most stupid, weak individual can sit behind their computer and act like their an on line Navy Seal.  Despite passionate subjects and a few indiscreet statements here and there, this is a really good forum for the exchange of ideas and information.  Such attitudes can actually build up the human psyche and make one more confident to take their actions into public.
Enter the poll to see my answer
5

#193 | 65 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 I haven't thought about it in terms of a bell curve, although based on the attendance at the rally in DC last weekend approaching 2 million people, I would guess that more of us agree than we are lead to believe.

I do think that people are getting more opinionated, I'm not sure if it due to politicians and more radio/TV political pundits getting everyone wound up.    I would put this out there.... remember the silent majority?  I believe the silent majority are becoming the not so silent majority.  They are tired of the direction the politicians are taking this Country and are finally fed up enough to make their voices heard.   Pick your topic, illegal immigration, excessive spending, taxed to the limit, prayer not being allowed in school.... there are enough issues that the people have had enough!

Just my take.....
I think you're right. And it's about time we weren't so silent. If everyone who voted actually made EDUCATED choices before they went to the polls, Washington would look a lot different.
Enter the poll to see my answer
10

#194 | 65 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I think you're right. And it's about time we weren't so silent. If everyone who voted actually made EDUCATED choices before they went to the polls, Washington would look a lot different.
Definitely sure should Jason cos we all need it...
7

#195 | 65 days ago

 jasonwrites wrote:
I think you're right. And it's about time we weren't so silent. If everyone who voted actually made EDUCATED choices before they went to the polls, Washington would look a lot different.
 I think this is the smartest statement I have heard all weekend.... isn't it a shame that people are not motivated to actually research their choices instead of just listening to the media......   once you cast your vote... you can't take it back....
Enter the poll to see my answer
5

#196 | 65 days ago

 carlalbert64 wrote:
 I think this is the smartest statement I have heard all weekend.... isn't it a shame that people are not motivated to actually research their choices instead of just listening to the media......   once you cast your vote... you can't take it back....
Thanks, Carl. It is a shame. We are an ADD society and just want a media outlet (be it print, radio, TV or Web) to feed us information... or what may be called at best misinformation, and at worst disinformation.
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#197 | 64 days ago

It doesn't help that your vote means nothing.

Enter the poll to see my answer
3

#198 | 64 days ago

 (Edited by huskerfan_ia)
dipstick wrote:

It doesn't help that your vote means nothing.

I wouldn't say it means nothing.  It means Acorn has to work that much harder to steal counter your vote. 
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#199 | 64 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
I wouldn't say it means nothing.  It means Acorn has to work that much harder to steal counter your vote. 
I will.

What do the people vote where the end results actual means anything?
Enter the poll to see my answer
4

#200 | 64 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
I will.

What do the people vote where the end results actual means anything?
Well, if you're talking about access to your representative you're right, a single vote is rarely loud enough to be heard.

The best way to gain access unfortunately is with money.  Political donations or membership in a PAC will yield better results regarding influence. 

sidebar:
Politicians are easily corrupted with money, which is unfortunate but which is also why character is such an important factor in choosing who you support.  You can't remove money from politics, but you can remove the corrupted.
Enter the poll to see my answer
6

#201 | 64 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
Well, if you're talking about access to your representative you're right, a single vote is rarely loud enough to be heard.

The best way to gain access unfortunately is with money.  Political donations or membership in a PAC will yield better results regarding influence. 

sidebar:
Politicians are easily corrupted with money, which is unfortunate but which is also why character is such an important factor in choosing who you support.  You can't remove money from politics, but you can remove the corrupted.
A single vote, a bundle of votes, a gaggle of votes, a ton of votes, a million votes.

Different amount of votes still equate to nothing when what you're voting for means nothing.

Again, where can a public vote lead to anything meaningful?
Enter the poll to see my answer
3

#202 | 64 days ago

 dipstick wrote:
A single vote, a bundle of votes, a gaggle of votes, a ton of votes, a million votes.

Different amount of votes still equate to nothing when what you're voting for means nothing.

Again, where can a public vote lead to anything meaningful?
I guess you lost me.  Are you saying that regardless of how you vote the person elected ignores his/her constituency anyway?
Enter the poll to see my answer
2

#203 | 64 days ago

 huskerfan_ia wrote:
I guess you lost me.  Are you saying that regardless of how you vote the person elected ignores his/her constituency anyway?

Who are the people voting for?  The President?  The Vice President?  The Secretary of State? 

No.

You can say they elect Senators and Congressmen/women, but after their elected what happens?  When it comes to the big stuff, that actually matters, it's out of the people's control.

Enter the poll to see my answer
3

#204 | 64 days ago

 This cant be true !!!  No teacher , especially a professor ever makes this much sense !!!  Thats how you know its not real.
Enter the poll to see my answer
3

#205 | 64 days ago

 Toro Poo-poo......

Enter the poll to see my answer
3

#206 | 58 days ago

 bmcannon1 wrote:
It was a lot more corrupt when Bush was running the show. I cant imagine what it would be by now.
That's uncalled for. They have all be corrupt in one way or another.
7

#207 | 58 days ago

 I'm outta here. I'm fast losing respect for all involved. I hate this bullshit. I can hear this on the news! They're full of bullshit too!
5

#208 | 34 days ago

 i like this poll...OBAMA SUCKS
2


Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
•Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
•Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
•Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
•Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends



Join Today
About FanIQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Contact Us
Report A Bug
Help

Copyright 2009 Sportelligence, Inc. All Rights Reserved