Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Jul 17, 2:09 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> The_Carpathia <writing...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >So much for education being a key issue in the debate, it seems. In
>> >recent speeches to NAACP, we see that ....
>>
>> >...both McCain and Obama sup****t teacher performance pay (opposed by
>> >the unions).
>>
>> Meaningless, since they wouldn't necessarily sup****t the same policies
>> on teacher performance pay.
>
>According to their speeches...they do.
You are clueless. Neither has stated detailed policy on that, or on
most other issues.
>> >...both McCain and Obama sup****t charter schools (opposed by the
>> >unions).
>>
>> Your evidence is lacking that the unions oppose charter schools.
>
>Recent evidence has been provided many times,
Your evidence is lacking.
>such as when the NEA objected to Obama's speech, when he sup****ted
charter schools.
"They" may have objected to his speech (but of course "they" didn't),
but that doesn't mean that "they" opposed every word of every
sentence.
Meanwhile, we have the stated official position of the NEA on the
subject.
>They blasted him, afterwards, at their websites for that sup****t.
Your evidence is lacking. I see nothing "blasting" anyone on the NEA
website.
http://www.nea.org/educationvotes/briefingbook.html
has a two page PDF about charters
<Even though more than a million students in 40 states now attend some
< 4,000 charter schools, the jury is still out on whether this is an
< effective school improvement strategy.
That is "ambivalent", not "opposed".
>The link
>provided in the initial post, also, gave Obama sup****t for charter
>schools as an example of his break from liberals (didn't follow the
>link....did you).
http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3749401
"Scholastic" is not the NEA.
And the article says this:
<For these reasons, the United Federation of Teachers and the National
< Education Association have not endorsed him.
which does not mean that they oppose him.
Followed by:
>Then again, he isn’t on
< the hot seat yet, and it’s hard to tell from speeches and campaign
< propaganda what he’d really do if he were in charge.
Apparently they don't see as clearly into Kennie's prophetic vision
that says that the two candidates would be absolutely identical if
they were in charge.
>> >...both McCain and Obama sup****t NCLB.
>>
>> But they mean different things when they say that.
>
>Let me rephrase..then. BOTH will fund NCLB...better?
ESEA/NCLB has to be reauthorized. It WILL be changed as a result of
that reauthorization. The nature of the changes will be affected by
who is elected - at least in the real world as opposed to Kennieland.
Therefore, what they are promising to fund are different things.
>> >McCain says he will fully fund
>> >it, while Obama says he will INCREASE funding for it (despite liberal
>> >opposition to it).
>>
>> Unless they say where the money is coming from (and that answer
>> doesn't include the meaningless "eliminate waste", I don't believe any
>> politician who says that they will increase funding for anything).
>>
>> Any increases in funding had better mean an increase in taxes, or the
>> deficit will get worse, which is unacceptable.
>
>So, you are disagreeing with Obama's words in your argument about what
>Obama sup****ts?
No. I am saying that Obama's words don't mean what you think that
they mean, because as you interpret them, they make no sense. You
cannot increase spending without raising the money. So the quote from
Obama is not a complete policy and is therefore meaningless.
>Apparently, you know best what Obama believes (more than Obama).
I make no such claim. I do have common sense though.
>However, I take note that you believe your own candidate
He isn't my candidate, idiot. I remain officially undecided.
>is lying to you.
I don't consider pandering to be lying. I consider it to be
pandering. That is why I generally ignore what the candidates are
saying now. Especially taken out of context, as you incessantly do,
those statements don't really mean anything.
>...about who knows how much.
You certainly don't.
> Hint...he lied to you at the start in saying he was a progressive.
I don't know when he said he was a progressive, if he did so at all,
but he didn't say it to me (and in fact has NEVER said anything to
me), so he could not have lied to me.
And if I google on his name and progressive, I can find several people
and groups calling him progressive, including Hillary when she was at
the height of her campaign against him and therefore unlikely to give
him the benefit if the doubt
feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/211505184/05769
He certainly seems like a progressive to me. But the word almost
certainly means something different to me than it does to you. Indeed,
the word to me described EXACTLY what the scholastic article says that
he sounds like:
<As a candidate, Obama is mostly pu****ng traditional Democratic ideas.
< At times, however, he’s sounded much more like a reform-minded free
< thinker.
We can use a "reform-minded free thinker". Reform-minded means that
he is progressive. "Free thinker" means that he isn't an ideologue.
>> >...neither McCain and Obama want NCLB to stay the same but plan on
>> >fixing any flaws it may have.
>>
>> But of course they see different flaws, so that is just attempt to
>> paper over the differences.
>
>You have evidence of this?
They are in different political parties, idiot.
>Give me SPECIFIC flaw differences, here, if you have them...
A quick look at their sites:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
stresses aiding schools that need improvement, improving the testing
process, and making education more than test preparation, strongly
emphasizing math and science education, transition ESL programs,
summer and after school learning programs, and early intervention
against dropouts. He also has 4 specific points on improving teacher
qualifications (which is also a part of NCLB)
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/19ce50b5-daa8-4795-b92d-92bd0d985bca.htm
which appears to stress parental choice, school competition, and
applying the same standards to mentally retarded kids as to the
gifted.
Obama position paper doesn't mention choice or competition or equal
standards. McCain's position paper lacks specifics, but doesn't seem
to address any of the things that Obama addresses.
In short, their positions have almost nothing in common.
>> >...McCain said he sup****ts voucher programs, while Obama recently was
>> >condemned by the left for sup****ting government funds being given to
>> >faith-based programs (which...I would assume...would include schools,
>> >unless he is lying about it being ok to give government funds to
>> >religious groups)
>>
>> That assumption has nothing to do with reality. The discussions of
>> "Faith-based programs" refer to social service programs for the poor.
>
>It's still money from the government to religious groups, which is the
>point.
That is not the point to him. That may be the point to someone like
jalison, but Obama is not jalison.
>> <"For example, he hasn’t ruled out private school vouchers, and some
say he could return to the idea."
>>
>> That merely says that he hasn't taken an unflinching ideological
>> stance against them.
>
>So, he is not against them.
That is not in evidence either. See the following:
>> <OBAMA: “If vouchers are proven to work], whatever my preconception,
you do what’s best for kids.”
>>
>> The second quote suggests that his preconception is against vouchers,
>> but that he is willing to be open-minded. Of course, since vouchers
>> have NOT been proven to work, his statement indicates no changes in
>> favor of vouchers.
>
>This is stated policy of being willing to do vouchers and not being
>against them.
No. It says that he is against them, but is willing to be open-minded
enough to consider them if they are proven to work (which they haven't
and won't, so he is not in danger of having to keep that commitment).
>Since vouchers would come from congress,
They won't come from Congress. That wasn't even possible when the
Republicans had a solid majority.
Existing voucher plans are being done at the state or local level.
>it only matters if the President would veto such legislation. In regards
to
>this, BOTH Obama and McCain would not veto it.
Obama is perfectly free to veto such legislation until such time that
vouchers are proven to work (and even then he could veto them for
other reasons). But since there will be no such legislation, that
isn't relevant.
>> >...McCain said he sup****ts alternative certification programs (as if
>> >he was the only one to sup****t such). However, Obama's own website
>> >says....
>> >"Recruit Teachers: Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholar****ps
>> >that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate
>> >teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for
mid-
>> >career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a
>> >high-need field or location." This would indicate sup****t by Obama
>> >for alternative certification programs. Thus...both agree, again.
>>
>> Not all "alternative certification programs" are alike. Obama refers
>> to HIGH-QUALITY programs, which necessarily excludes any program that
>> lets someone like you into a classroom. He also requires a 4-year
>> teaching commitment. That's a pretty high standard. Teach for
>> America has 75% turnover over 5 years, which is hardly good enough for
>>
Obama.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Nov_24/ai_110364129
>
>Dude. I am highly qualified,
Bull****. You are highly incompetent.
Your posting have demonstrated that haven't got reading comprehension
skills sufficient to teach YOURSELF to read, much less anyone else.
>right now, according to state records.
Oh. You got your certificate, or are you still working on it?
>YOU, on the other hand, are a punk.
Not hardly
<Main Entry: 1punk
<Pronunciation: \'p??k\
<Function: noun
<Etymology: origin unknown
<Date: 1596
<1archaic : prostitute
<2[probably partly from 3punk] : nonsense, foolishness
<3 a: a young inexperienced person : beginner, novice; especially : a
< young man b: a usually petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian cslang : a
< young man used as a homo***ual partner especially in a prison
<4 a: punk rock b: a punk rock musician c: one who affects punk styles
I am not a prostitute
I am not young (I qualify for AARP member****p).
I am not a gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian, and indeed have never been
charged with a misdemeanor, much less convicted.
And I don't like punk rock or competently play any instrument, and my
hair is the color that God gave to me.
>I have a college degree,
From Falwell U, which means nothing positive to anyone with common
sense.
I have a university degree from a respected institution, not merely an
accredited one, and my degree was a coordinate major of astrophysics
and liberal science. And I earned somewhat over 5 years worth of
college credits in 4 years, so I was technically qualified for a
second bachelors in math or physics, though they would have been
minimal qualifications not in accord with what the typical majors in
those subjects took.
>19 hours of Education coursework,
Yawn.
We've heard what the right wing thinks of education coursework, and
you haven't demonstrated on this forum that you learned anything.
>have passed a general knowledge test,
Yet you are a general know-nothing.
>two subject knowledge tests (ABCTE and FL state), and a teacher knowledge
>test that has been ruled harder than the one Praxis offers (only 40
>percent pass the test).
Yawn.
I haven't taken them, and Praxis is NOT considered to be a difficult
test, regardless of how many pass it.
I have taken the SAT (pre-recentering). Wanna compare scores? I am
certainly better educated than when I took that test.
I have take the National Merit Scholar****p Test, when it was a
different test than the PSAT. I scored in the top 3% in the country.
I have taken a few IQ tests when I was a kid. In the last one, I
took, on entering high school, I apparently scored higher than anyone
ever had in our district.
>You just have an ego
Not really. But of I did, it would be well-earned.
>and an air of superiority to speak down to
.... an idiot like you.
My IQ would grant me that "superiority" if anyone cared.
But on this forum, what matters is the respect granted by others. It
is quite clear that no one on the education forums respect you, and
the k12 teachers forum respects you even less than the general
education forum. On the other hand, I am shown respect on both, even
though I freely admit that I am NOT a teacher.
By the standard of respect on this forum, you are lower than the Nazi
racist spammers. They at least respect each other (for what that is
worth), whereas NO ONE respects Kennie.
>those that have education training
>(without any of your own) and false authority on a wide number of
>subjects.
No one has authority on this forum, and no one needs authority on this
forum.
On the science fiction written newsgroup, there are postings by
published science fiction writers. THEY are granted some authority in
the limited arena of how to write and get published.
In this forum, even a Teacher of the Year (John Gatto) has no especial
authority except for those who share his extremist ideology.
>Just so you know...also. ABCTE (one of the many things that is behind
>me) just released the results of a review of their alumni. A full 85
>percent of their graduates that started teaching 3 years ago are STILL
>there, three years later. That beats the retention rates of most
>schools and beats (by far) the national average of teacher retention
>rates.
Yawn.
Let me know when there is an INDEPENDENT review. Not that I care.
Anyone who says you are qualified, has thereby invalidated themselves
in my mind as an accrediting organization.
>That being said, I await your reference to OBAMA's words that say he
>would not sup****t ABCTE, Teach for America, or other such
>organizations.
He has said what he WILL sup****t. He has not said what he will not
sup****t. I don't much care.
>Throughout your response, here, you seem to reject Obama's own words,
No. I reject YOUR interpretation of those words, or more often,
simply don't care about his words.
>where you don't like them, and add Obama's words,
>where he hasn't said them. What's the matter?
Nothing.
>Don't like where he's taking your party?
What party is that? I am not in his party or any other one, so he
can't take my party anywhere.
>Feeling betrayed?
Nope. Since I have promised him nothing and he has promised me
nothing.
And every time you force me to look at what he says, I like most of
what I see.
I don't demand 100% agreement with my own ideas from any politician,
nor do I expect any politician to follow what he has said 100%.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
