I'm a Southern Texas Democrat!

[palemale]

Centrex, you asked in another thread about CE&P stimulating sexual desire. It doesn't in me, I must say. I haven't posted here in many months, with a couple of exceptions recently. Droid's response is a perfect example of why I haven't. What passes for discourse by the right-wingers and GPO apologists on here is the equivalent of a high school food fight. Everyone ends up dirty, and there is little illumination. The recent "scandal" with the RNC and their power point presentation regarding their fund-raising strategy, i.e. appeal to the ego of the big contributors and the fear of their small contributors, helps explain the downward spiral of this country. The Republican strategy amounts to little more than to make the country ungovernable so that they can return to power. And what then? They have no governing strategy.

Droid, please explain to us all the governing strategy of the Republican Party. They spent the last 8 years destroying the country, wrecking the economy, lying us into war in Iraq, screwing up the war effort in Afghanistan. Can you name one coherent policy they have to address any single problem facing the country? It has to pass the laugh test, by the way. The fact is that the Republicans are bereft of ideas, and a complete captive of the Religious Right and the corporations. They are a joke.

And as far as your assertion that progressives have bankrupted the country, please explain that. Bush turned a surplus into the worst deficits imaginable. It is the conservative Repugs that have done that in the last 8 years.

And Centex, you know I love you. So, it is with great pain that I inform you that Will Rogers was from Oklahoma.

 

[JB3]

This is the kind of shit that I'm talking about with "conservatives" and the Democrats unwillingness to counter with a defense.

When conservatives talk about bankrupting our national treasury with "tax and spend liberal policies," they completely detract from the reality that they themselves are the biggest proponents of "unfunded mandates."

Can you say No Child Left Behind?

Yet another system that the GOP, and "conservatives" utilized to destroy a public education system (another socialist institution by their current definition btw), by requiring that "independent school districts" facilitate a series of test, which in effect eliminated physical education because there wasn't enough time available, so that teachers could teach kids how to take test rather than to objectively think for themselves.

Sorry Centex, you don't know a damn thing about NCLB and this post proves it. It was the brain child of DEMOCRATS, not of the GOP. The planning for it was started under Clinton, and came to a head while Bush was in office. The ONLY thing Bush43 had to do with it was signing it into law, and that was it. Of all the bills besides the Patriot Act, NCLB had among the highest bipartisan support levels in congress of any bill passed in the last decade. The GOP doesn't deserve all the shit they get for the failure of that bill, because it was a BIPARTISAN failure.

I will wholeheartedly admit the the GOP under Bush didn't do anything to guard against a rapidly increasing debt, but don't kid yourself and think for a moment that all of the pie-in-the-sky unfunded programs proposed by the President are going to help our current situation.

The LAST thing we need right now, with SS and Medicare/Medicaid already on the brink of financial ruin, is a progressive president running wild and establishing all sorts of new unfunded mandates and programs like Obama's HCR, Cap and Trade, and any number of countless programs that the liberals in congress would like passed. Perhaps, instead of trying to pass any programs to create a 'progressive and forward-looking society' we should fix the progressive programs that are a cause of our financial distress in the first place?

 

[JB3]

Droid, please explain to us all the governing strategy of the Republican Party. They spent the last 8 years destroying the country, wrecking the economy, lying us into war in Iraq, screwing up the war effort in Afghanistan. Can you name one coherent policy they have to address any single problem facing the country? It has to pass the laugh test, by the way. The fact is that the Republicans are bereft of ideas, and a complete captive of the Religious Right and the corporations. They are a joke.

You do understand the financial calamity we're in was decades in the making, don't you? (thanks to the policies of republicans and democrats) You do understand that, despite what liberals like you like to believe, everyone (including our current secretary of state) believed Iraq had WMDs and ALL of the credible evidence present at the time pointed to that conclusion?

And I don't pretend to know what the republican party is seeking because I'm not one of them. I will tell you, however, that their strategy on reducing debt and the deficit is more sound than that of the President's and includes doing things he doesn't have the mettle to do. (like painful cuts in services, and a budget that actually addresses the issues) That being said, I don't feel that either party represents my views. The democrats spend far too much, without figuring out how to pay for their increased spending, and the republicans are far too conservative on certain social issues. And despite what you may like to believe, and the lie people like you continually propagate, the Republicans DO have ideas on how to address pressing issues like HCR. Here is the quick run down of the republican proposal:

http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/...rnative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf

Here's their budget solutions:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget

And energy:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/energy

Those aren't going to solve all the problems and I don't pretend that they do. However, they're certainly a better approach to solving the problems than the solutions that democrats have thus far proposed.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Sorry pal, you don't know a damn thing about NCLB and this post proves it. It was the brain child of DEMOCRATS, not of the GOP.

Really???

Got any cites to back that up?

I don't think so.

Most all of Bush43's policies that he imposed upon the U.S. when he was POTUS he had already given a trial run on the taxpayers of Texas before being "elected" President.

So unless you can prove that NCLB was the brainchild of a Democratic you're the one who's has to prove your argument because I was hear in Texas throughout it's formation.

The planning for it was started under Clinton, and came to a head while Bush was in office.

Your right about that. Clinton was President while George W. Bush as Governor. It was Texas Governor George Bush who was setting into place NCLB.

The ONLY thing Bush43 had to do with it was signing it into law, and that was it.

What planet are you living on?

The ONLY thing?

NCLB would never have gotten legs if it wasn't a part of Bush43's platform while he was Governor of Texas!

Of all the bills besides the Patriot Act, NCLB had among the highest bipartisan support levels in congress of any bill passed in the last decade.

How would you possibly be even to tell?

I remember when Republican Tennessee Senator Bill Frist praised NCLB as an important piece of legislation, and I kept thinking where's the money to fund it?

The Democrats were the "minority party" when that happened.

Remember?

If NCLB was the brainchild of a Democrat do you honestly think that the Republicans would have praised any aspect of it?

The GOP doesn't deserve all the shit they get for the failure of that bill, because it was a BIPARTISAN failure.

Oh so "BIPARTISAN" then means what it means now; it was a piece of shit legislation, and because some Democrats voted for it they're responsible for its failure.

I'm hearing a "conservative" echo chamber revisionist history coming on.

I will wholeheartedly admit the the GOP under Bush didn't do anything to guard against a rapidly increasing debt, but don't kid yourself and think for a moment that all of the pie-in-the-sky unfunded programs proposed by the President are going to help our current situation.

Unfunded?

UNFUNDED?

It's because there's an actual price tag attached, unlike ANY Republican proposed mandate, that the right wing and the "less government conservatives" have their panties in a twist!

Where was the GOP, and their Tea Party friends when they were running up our deficit in Iraq?

You think that because I'm bitching about Democrats that I won't be able to defend that party's platform?

The LAST thing we need right now, with SS and Medicare/Medicaid already on the brink of financial ruin, is a progressive president running wild and establishing all sorts of new unfunded mandates and programs like Obama's HCR, Cap and Trade, and any number of countless programs that the liberals in congress would like passed. Perhaps, instead of trying to pass any bullshit programs to create a 'progressive and forward-looking society' we should fix the progressive programs that are a cause of our financial distress in the first place.

You and I may be in agreement on that highlighted aspect of your summation, but Republicans and the GOP has screwed the pooch on this one, and they're the LAST group to be calling a spade a spade while they've not only had their pig snouts at the government trough, they been fucking the American public without even the decency of a reach around.

And now their the victims of an over-sized government?

Becky puh-leaze.

 

[JB3]

Really???

Got any cites to back that up?

I don't think so.

Most all of Bush43's policies that he imposed upon the U.S. when he was POTUS he had already given a trial run on the taxpayers of Texas before being "elected" President.

So unless you can prove that NCLB was the brainchild of a Democratic you're the one who's has to prove your argument because I was hear in Texas throughout it's formation.

When the draft of NCLB was released, democrats claimed that Bush plagiarized the plans already plotted out under Clinton. In fact, the final bill, chiefly authored by Ted Kennedy, was an amalgamation of all of the FAILED proposals that were generated under Clinton.

The blueprint, in short, borrowed liberally from several competing proposals made in the waning years of the Clinton administration. Bush "essentially plagiarized our plan," one Lieberman aide told the Washington Post, but others in Congress could have made the same claim. What is called plagiarism in academia wins political points in Congress; the Bush proposals were well received on Capitol Hill.

Your right about that. Clinton was President while George W. Bush as Governor. It was Texas Governor George Bush who was setting into place NCLB.





What planet are you living on?

The ONLY thing?

NCLB would never have gotten legs if it wasn't a part of Bush43's platform while he was Governor of Texas!

Bullshit:

By the mid-1990s, then, the themes of No Child Left Behind were already on the table. In many ways the final ingredient was President George W. Bush, who persuaded some Republicans to accept proposals that they had rejected just one session of Congress earlier and tacked with Democrats toward common ground. In so doing, however, agreements in principle sometimes papered over real disagreements regarding policy particulars. This meant that many key issues in No Child Left Behind were postponed until implementation. As a result, the Education Department's rule-making process and its enforcement practices will be vital in determining how seriously states and schools will take the new requirements.

The Late Clinton Years

The lesson that many policymakers and analysts took from the 1994 reauthorization was that federal dollars needed to be tied more explicitly to measurable gains in student performance. In April 1999, Andrew Rotherham of the Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute summed up the key elements of this view in an influential white paper. In it he wrote that Congress, to rectify the Title I program's status as "an undertaking without consequences" for everyone except students, should set performance benchmarks and terminate aid to districts that failed to meet them. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act's 50-plus separate, categorical grants would be reduced to five broad"performance-based grants" funding the Title I compensatory-education program, teacher quality, English proficiency, public school choice, and innovation.

As the next reauthorization cycle rolled around, conservatives were supportive of the idea of state flexibility combined with performance goals, but they favored an even broader block grant approach that would give states enormous discretion over how they spent federal education funding. This would prove to be a major sticking point, as Democrats tended to oppose broad block grants that threatened programs with specific purposes. The proposal that reached the Senate floor included a pilot block-grant program giving spending discretion to 15 states. It also held kernels of the language that would find its way into No Child Left Behind two years later. It still allowed states to define what adequate yearly progress meant, but the state plans had to ensure that each racial, ethnic, and economic subgroup of students would be proficient within ten years. Any school identified as "needing improvement" was required to offer students the chance to transfer to another public school and to pay the transportation costs. This was to happen after two years of failing to make adequate progress.

ALL of the language and ideas behind NCLB were generated under Clinton. ALL of the foundations behind the accountability movement, and funding principles, were generated by Clinton and progressives.

How would you possibly be even to tell?

I remember when Republican Tennessee Senator Bill Frist praised NCLB as an important piece of legislation, and I kept thinking where's the money to fund it?

The Democrats were the "minority party" when that happened.

Remember?

If NCLB was the brainchild of a Democrat do you honestly think that the Republicans would have praised any aspect of it?

You do understand that the leading author of NCLB was Ted Kennedy, don't you? You do understand that the ONLY reason why Republicans voted for the final bill was because parts of the proposal were fine-tuned (and the wheels greased by republican leadership) to get it to pass? Similar legislation was proposed under Clinton, but republicans refused to pass it.

Oh so "BIPARTISAN" then means what it means now; it was a piece of shit legislation, and because some Democrats voted for it they're responsible for its failure.

I'm hearing a "conservative" echo chamber revisionist history coming on.

Some? Who's being revisionist now?

NCLB passed the Senate 87-10, and the House 381-41. If that isn't bipartisan, then I don't know what is.

Unfunded?

UNFUNDED?

It's because there's an actual price tag attached, unlike ANY Republican proposed mandate, that the right wing and the "less government conservatives" have their panties in a twist!

Where was the GOP, and their Tea Party friends when they were running up our deficit in Iraq?

You think that because I'm bitching about Democrats that I won't be able to defend that party's platform?

You're trying to, but you're not doing a very good job of it. You keep bringing up the past, which I've acknowledged was full of some very distressing mistakes on the part of Republicans, but you're still completely failing to acknowledge the fact that the proposals of the president and his party will destroy what little is left of the government's financial stability. Using what republicans have done in the past as an excuse to do so is completely pathetic.

You and I may be in agreement on that highlighted aspect of your summation, but Republicans and the GOP has screwed the pooch on this one, and they're the LAST group to be calling a spade a spade while they've not only had their pig snouts at the government trough, they been fucking the American public without even the decency of a reach around.

And now their the victims of an over-sized government?

Becky puh-leaze.

So now, because they've made mistakes, they're not allowed to call the democrats on THEIR horrifying fiscal policy? That's utter horseshit, my friend.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ And not one link to any source.

 

[palemale]

Centex, since when have the Republicans let facts and the truth stand in the way of a silly (or even preposterous) argument?

 

[jackoroe]

Centrex, you asked in another thread about CE&P stimulating sexual desire. It doesn't in me, I must say. I haven't posted here in many months, with a couple of exceptions recently. Droid's response is a perfect example of why I haven't. What passes for discourse by the right-wingers and GPO apologists on here is the equivalent of a high school food fight. Everyone ends up dirty, and there is little illumination. The recent "scandal" with the RNC and their power point presentation regarding their fund-raising strategy, i.e. appeal to the ego of the big contributors and the fear of their small contributors, helps explain the downward spiral of this country. The Republican strategy amounts to little more than to make the country ungovernable so that they can return to power. And what then? They have no governing strategy.

Droid, please explain to us all the governing strategy of the Republican Party. They spent the last 8 years destroying the country, wrecking the economy, lying us into war in Iraq, screwing up the war effort in Afghanistan. Can you name one coherent policy they have to address any single problem facing the country? It has to pass the laugh test, by the way. The fact is that the Republicans are bereft of ideas, and a complete captive of the Religious Right and the corporations. They are a joke.

And as far as your assertion that progressives have bankrupted the country, please explain that. Bush turned a surplus into the worst deficits imaginable. It is the conservative Repugs that have done that in the last 8 years.

And Centex, you know I love you. So, it is with great pain that I inform you that Will Rogers was from Oklahoma.

The republicans are using the same strategy that the democrats did in 2006. If you recall, they simply ran against Bush and the war in Iraq. Bush being unpopular allowed them take the House and Senate. They won by being the party of "No". So please don't argue that anybody needs a cogent strategy to be elected.

And yes, I agree that the republicans spent far too much. So we elected democrats who castigated them for it. And how much has the deficit been reduced since that time? Fact is we've got TRILLION dollar holes as far as the eye can see. And just as a reminder, every single spending bill has to originate in the House of Representatives, which Ms. Nancy has controlled since 2007. It's more appropriate to blame her for the spending orgy than any President be it Bush or Obama. And that Iraq war thingy. We're still there, but we don't hear a peep from the left anymore. I guess it's OK so long as they're running the show.

The democrats took power promising to "Drain the swamp." To change the culture of corruption. The only thing we've changed is the characters involved. There are still crooks like Rangel taking gifts while writing tax laws that he has some difficulty following. We've still got perverts chasing staffers. Please don't try and sell me on the piety of one party over the other.

The truth is that both parties suck. And as long as you simply keep choosing between sucks and sucks less, you'll keep getting what we've got!

 

[JB3]

^ And not one link to any source.

I expected more from you. Instead of attempting to refute what I'm saying, which directly contradicts every ridiculous claim you're making, you attack me.

And here's the source:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_4_3/ai_109568571/

 

[jackoroe]

^Droid, Centex isn't attacking you, he's challenging you to make a better argument.

 

[Centexfarmer]

And here's the source:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_4_3/ai_109568571/

That's it?

That is the source article for your entire argument that NCLB was actually a Democratic Plan, because a Republican (former Texas Governor G.W. Bush) authorized "a sweeping reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was originally enacted in 1965 as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty" that some how NCLB was actually a Democrats idea?



I apologize.

Seriously.

I commented previously in this thread:

I'm hearing a "conservative" echo chamber revisionist history coming on.

To which wit you replied:

Who's being revisionist now?

It's not revisionist history at all, but rather a matter of perspective.

Since NCLB was the one thing that you decided to "attack me" for, the one element of my self-professed "rant" that you felt like you could sink your teeth into in a feeble attempt to discredit me you stated (in your typical posting fashion):

Sorry Centex, you don't know a damn thing about NCLB and this post proves it. It was the brain child of DEMOCRATS, not of the GOP.

Of course you did so without any initial citations or sources to back up your claims as to why my perspective on this matter was "ridiculous," and when called upon it you gave me your "perspective," and when I responded you stated:

I expected more from you. Instead of attempting to refute what I'm saying, which directly contradicts every ridiculous claim you're making, you attack me.

Personally, you've yet to actually be attacked here because we do encourage decorum, contrary to your perspective on the matter.

I freely acknowledge that perspective is what makes getting to know each other so wonderful.

Don't you?

But there are historical facts that cannot be ignored.

Please allow me to share what I personally know about NCLB, and it's origins, both politically and socially!

Rather than share my own personal perspective and my feelings on this matter (which I've already verbally illustrated), and why I blame the GOP, and Bush43 for it's failures, I'll provide a series of links to back up my disdain/blame toward Republicans and "Conservatives" for their contribution toward "socialized" education:

Origins and Purpose of "No Child Left Behind"

Now ^ that guy might sound like a "tin hat," but he did his dissertation on the subject, and even provides a link to it.

Last I checked Glen Beck just wears a tin hat.

Proof that Republicans wanted to talk a big game about education, but didn't want to fund it:
Bush-Democrat alliance on education law feared

A Texas Educator's weblog perspective:
NCLB has been a destructive tragedy, not an accomplishment

^ Now would she be talking about Senator Kennedy's No Child Left Behind that wasn't even on the Federal Radar while Clinton was POTUS, or G.W. Bush's NCLB while he was Governor of Texas?

When the draft of NCLB was released, democrats claimed that Bush plagiarized the plans already plotted out under Clinton. In fact, the final bill, chiefly authored by Ted Kennedy, was an amalgamation of all of the FAILED proposals that were generated under Clinton.

I'm still waiting for a cite/link on that claim.

I seem to recall, by all "conservative" and GOP accounts of the time, that Clinton was too busy getting blown by a White House Intern to be worrying about public education (or terrorist threats from abroad). Because after all "conservatives" and the GOP in general are all about what's best for Americans.



It was during that time, that Texas Governor George W. Bush had not only drafted the NCLB legislation it was already Texas Law, and being enforced within every "Independent School District" within Texas!

How do I know? BECAUSE I WAS LIVING HERE AT THE TIME!

But, without any cites/links/or original primary sources you state:

Sorry Centex, you don't know a damn thing about NCLB...

Please allow me to show how gracious I can be.

NCLB under the *cough* Leadership/Authorship of former Texas Governor G.W. Bush, and the 43rd President of the United States was passed as Federal Law by a bipartisan effort, and the Late Liberal Senior Senator from Massachusetts Ted Kennedy was a key in it's passage. (After Bush was sworn in as the 43rd President.)

Didja get that?

The facts speak for themselves, but NCLB was by no measure or by no means the brain child of ANY Democrat, that I'm aware of, and I anxiously await any proof that you might be able to share with me beyond your word on the matter; drafted proposals, key provisions, previous attempts by the Dems to gain passage of any legislation related to NCLB either on a state or federal level, the Democratic Origins of NCLB, or any provisions or attempts from the GOP to actually fund it once it gained passage.

So I stand by my statement of "unfunded mandates" from the GOP. They talk the talk, they just never walk the talk.

BUSH’S BROKEN PROMISE TO AMERICA’S STUDENTS:
$40 BILLION AND COUNTING

^Droid, Centex isn't attacking you, he's challenging you to make a better argument.

Thanks Jack!

Actually I was just ranting and wasn't aware that I would have to defend one small aspect of my rant with someone who wanted to take a perspective issue without providing any cites or links to back up any of his own "ridiculous claims" as he presented them in post #27 of this thread.

As if he's trying to persuade me to take a more positive perspective toward "conservatives" within the GOP while it's obvious that I'm currently nursing a pretty dim view of the Dems.

I'm just saying.

 

[JB3]

I seem to recall, by all "conservative" and GOP accounts of the time, that Clinton was too busy getting blown by a White House Intern to be worrying about public education (or terrorist threats from abroad). Because after all "conservatives" and the GOP in general are all about what's best for Americans.

You're ignoring history if you think that Clinton had no hand in NCLB. ALL of the foundations for the legislation were laid by Clinton and his liberal staff in the late 90s.

NCLB under the *cough* Leadership/Authorship of former Texas Governor G.W. Bush, and the 43rd President of the United States was passed as Federal Law by a bipartisan effort, and the Late Liberal Senior Senator from Massachusetts Ted Kennedy was a key in it's passage. (After Bush was sworn in as the 43rd President.)

Kennedy was not just key, he AUTHORED THE LAW.

Didja get that?

The facts speak for themselves, but NCLB was by no measure or by no means the brain child of ANY Democrat, that I'm aware of, and I anxiously await any proof that you might be able to share with me beyond your word on the matter; drafted proposals, key provisions, previous attempts by the Dems to gain passage of any legislation related to NCLB either on a state or federal level, the Democratic Origins of NCLB, or any provisions or attempts from the GOP to actually fund it once it gained passage.

Read the link I provided. It very clearly lays out the democratic foundations that led to NCLB. If you still persist in believing that they don't exist, you're either lying or you aren't reading it. ALL of the proposals that were pasted together into NCLB were based on progressive ideas. The only reason republicans voted for them was because Bush asked them to.

If you still don't get it, here's a fairly informative link on Bill Clinton on education. If that information looks familiar (it should) its because almost all of his actions in the late 90s in regards to education were driving towards what became NCLB.

*See edit note below*

If you still don't get it, here's a fairly informative link on Bill Clinton on education. If that information looks familiar (it should) its because almost all of his actions in the late 90s in regards to education were driving towards what became NCLB.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/bill_clinton_education.htm

Here's a bunch of links dealing with Clinton and education reform:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000414_1.html
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPo...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ453909
http://www.heritage.org/research/education/ednotes83.cfm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-156758336.html

Here is a nice summary of Clinton's plans written by Judd Gregg:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v10/ai_14895998/

 

[Centexfarmer]

You're ignoring history if you think that Clinton had no hand in NCLB. ALL of the foundations for the legislation were laid by Clinton and his liberal staff in the late 90s.

Kennedy was not just key, he AUTHORED THE LAW.

Read the link I provided. It very clearly lays out the democratic foundations that led to NCLB. If you still persist in believing that they don't exist, you're either lying or you aren't reading it. ALL of the proposals that were pasted together into NCLB were based on progressive ideas. The only reason republicans voted for them was because Bush asked them to.

I think that I now understand your perspective, now please allow me to explain mine.

I gather that the basis of your argument is that NCLB was the brainchild of Democrats based upon your perspective of the evolution of Education Reform. Primarily as our current NCLB applies to Clinton's Education Plan.

If you still don't get it, here's a fairly informative link on Bill Clinton on education. If that information looks familiar (it should) its because almost all of his actions in the late 90s in regards to education were driving towards what became NCLB.

Here's what you're apparently missing from my perspective: No Child Left Behind was ALREADY IN EXISTENCE! RIGHT HERE IN THE TEXAS!

If Clinton wanted to advocate for NCLB, why didn't he just advocate for what Texas Governor George W. Bush was already doing in Texas?

What part of that don't you understand?

Bush43 didn't build on Clinton's plan, he already had a plan of his own in place, and Bush43 took what he did in Texas and Nationalized it as HIS own Education plan.

*See edit note below*

If you still don't get it, here's a fairly informative link on Bill Clinton on education. If that information looks familiar (it should) its because almost all of his actions in the late 90s in regards to education were driving towards what became NCLB.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/bill_clinton_education.htm

Here's a bunch of links dealing with Clinton and education reform:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000414_1.html
http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPo...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ453909
http://www.heritage.org/research/education/ednotes83.cfm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-156758336.html

Here is a nice summary of Clinton's plans written by Judd Gregg:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v10/ai_14895998/

He links! Now I'm getting a boner!

Droid800 as much as I sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you went through to provide those links to this thread, which to me equate to a civics lesson on Clinton's plan on Public Education, and the reason why I stated in my first statement in this post that you're reaching, is because you've yet to provide one link, or in this case connection between Clinton's plan, and George W. Bush's NCLB.

I thought "conservatives" didn't believe in evolution.

The links that you provided show where there may have been some similarities between Clinton's plan on education with Bush's NCLB, but they don't show (nor can they or you prove), that Clinton's plan was something that Bush43 built upon, because NCLB was already in existence, and up and running here in Texas YEARS before Bush was sworn in as our 43rd President.

Leave No Child Behind / Education policy in George Bush's America

Please note that this ^ was less than two years into George W. Bush's Presidency.

How could they have been so critical of a policy that had only hit the ground running under POTUS Bush within his first year of office?

Leaving Children Behind kicks up dust in the lone star state

And that ^ book was written during the "bipartisan years" regarding NCLB under Bush's Leadership.

In your post #24 of this thread you told/attacked me (and without links I might ad):

Sorry Centex, you don't know a damn thing about NCLB and this post proves it. It was the brain child of DEMOCRATS, not of the GOP. The planning for it was started under Clinton, and came to a head while Bush was in office. The ONLY thing Bush43 had to do with it was signing it into law, and that was it.

That's the premise for your argument, but you've yet to prove anything to me from the comments that I've quoted above, and from the links that you've provided.

I argue, and believe that I have proved through links connecting to documentation of my own, that NCLB was already in existence under Texas Governor George W. Bush, while President Clinton was still in office, and therefore could not have been the brainchild of Democrats during Bush's first couple of years as POTUS, because Bush already had the NCLB Act, and the ink was already dried before he presented it in Washington as HIS Education Plan.





An a personal note, I history and as an amateur historian have been published, and awarded for my work and efforts toward it's preservation.

So I'd be willing to wager that I might know a little more about NCLB; its history, origins, and which political party and their leaders advocated the strongest for it, and their motivations behind it, and the same party that ultimately reduced it to an "unfunded mandate" which effectively trashed State and National Education system that, though wasn't perfect, was probably better off without NCLB.

I'm just saying.

So should I pay for the room, or do you want to go dutch?

 

[bankside]

Here's an example of the ridiculous "relativism" that is often championed by those in the centre:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294705

 

[opinterph]

Here's an example of the ridiculous "relativism" that is often championed by those in the centre:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294705

You might wanna explain the connection a little more. I don’t understand it myself and suppose others may also misinterpret your point of comparison.

I figure it has something to do with “overwhelming guilt through overwhelming self-punishment” or maybe “a powerful instinct to make a baby,” but I’m not sure.

It could also possibly relate to forcibly protecting people from themselves or maybe the bit about police snipers protecting society-at-large from those who threaten our safety and well-being – or at least our sense of safety and well-being, which is perhaps just as important. 8)

 

[JB3]

An a personal note, I history and as an amateur historian have been published, and awarded for my work and efforts toward it's preservation.

So I'd be willing to wager that I might know a little more about NCLB; its history, origins, and which political party and their leaders advocated the strongest for it, and their motivations behind it, and the same party that ultimately reduced it to an "unfunded mandate" which effectively trashed State and National Education system that, though wasn't perfect, was probably better off without NCLB.

I'm just saying.

So should I pay for the room, or do you want to go dutch?

Eh, I'll take your 'amateur historian' and raise you a master's thesis on the effects of NCLB on education in America, and its foundations in the education reform movement. I'd wager that my knowledge on the subject is just a *scosh* more well-rounded and complete than yours.

 

[bankside]

You might wanna explain the connection a little more. I don’t understand it myself and suppose others may also misinterpret your point of comparison.

I figure it has something to do with “overwhelming guilt through overwhelming self-punishment” or maybe “a powerful instinct to make a baby,” but I’m not sure.

It could also possibly relate to forcibly protecting people from themselves or maybe the bit about police snipers protecting society-at-large from those who threaten our safety and well-being – or at least our sense of safety and well-being, which is perhaps just as important. 8)

LoL good point. I suggest you check out the number of posts arguing basically "who are we to judge people who feel empowered by their bug-chasing and gift-giving?"

It is an example of the kind of over-inclusionism I see plaguing the centre of the political spectrum.

 

[frankfrank]

Oh hey, centex...you call yourself centexfarmer, but now you said you're a SOUTHERN Texas Democrat.

Was there some serious earthquake and plate tectonics going on that I didn't know about, moving your ranch a couple hundred miles south?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Eh, I'll take your 'amateur historian' and raise you a master's thesis on the effects of NCLB on education in America, and its foundations in the education reform movement.

I'm not even going to attempt to presume what your "educated" summation of the NCLB means to "the effects of NCLB on education in America, and its foundations in the education reform movement."

You've not shared one iota of depth in regard to your opinion upon it's successes or failures.

I blamed Bush43 for it's implementation on a State Level, and you attack me stating:

Sorry Centex, you don't know a damn thing about NCLB and this post proves it.

It would make me happy to know that your

master's thesis on the effects of NCLB on education in America

at least got you a Master's Degree!

The only thing that I can figure is that you took offense when I stated early on in this thread:

Can you say No Child Left Behind?

Yet another system that the GOP, and "conservatives" utilized to destroy a public education system (another socialist institution by their current definition btw), by requiring that "independent school districts" facilitate a series of test, which in effect eliminated physical education because there wasn't enough time available, so that teachers could teach kids how to take test rather than to objectively think for themselves

You latched onto that statement like a bird on a june bug!

Well Sir, either you're educated beyond your intelligence, or your academic perspective of NCLB has blinded you to the social, political, and historical perspectives not to mention which party is held to blame for it's successes and failures here in the Great State of Texas.

Seriously.

You'll be my "go to guy" when I need someone to trumpet NCLB's accomplishments and failures!

I'd wager that my knowledge on the subject is just a *scosh* more well-rounded and complete than yours.

You never answered my question:

So should I pay for the room, or do you want to go dutch?