The Last Election Thread

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Darius871


Unfortunately it has little to do with education, considering that kids in even the ****tiest schools could discover basic facts like that. It has to do with the fact that the culture doesn't encourage knowledge, and parents very rarely do. What difference do a good teacher, book, and laptop make if the kids don't give a ****? None.

QFT Though I was talking more about the culture than the schools per se when I said education. But that was my fault for communicating poorly.

And what could just magically make the kids suddenly start giving a ****? Nothing. Democracy is doomed.

Forget paying the teachers based on standardized test scores. Start paying the students. That would make a lot of kids give a ****. Obviously, plenty of problems with that plan, not saying it's workable. Hell, may not even improve knowledge levels since tests tend to measure ability to take tests more than anything else. But it would make the kids give a ****.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Seedle
Forget paying the teachers based on standardized test scores. Start paying the students. That would make a lot of kids give a ****. Obviously, plenty of problems with that plan, not saying it's workable. Hell, may not even improve knowledge levels since tests tend to measure ability to take tests more than anything else. But it would make the kids give a ****.

It'll never happen of course. It's blatantly racist for one, among other things.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Darius871




It'll never happen of course. It's blatantly racist for one, among other things.

How so? Because it favors white kids, who tend to do better on tests, (but I don't believe that's genetic) or because it favors black kids, who tend to be lower on the economic ladder and therefore need the money more (but I can't imagine any serious, extensive outcry against a plan that rewards poor kids with money for educating themselves.) Or am I missing something?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You completely undermined your case by saying Bush was wrong for doing the same thing. I'm not sure why you are arguing this at all when it's clear you and I agree on this issue. It's wrong to kick media off the plane for the sole reason that they are willing to criticise you.

Wrong, because I don't agree with your premise that this was a retaliatory gesture. As was said, there are still news outlets traveling with Obama that have been critical. Even one of the newspapers involved said they didn't think it was retaliatory. There's no evidence it was.

Think about it this way: since there is not additional cost to the media outlet to follow Obama around and report on what he does on the campaign trail, it's utterly senseless to think that this is somehow going to have any effect on how they cover the campaign...except perhaps to make the editorial boards even MORE critical of him. Hardly an item for deep dark concern.

And again... McCain's actions WERE retaliatory, they proudly admitted it.

If Bush were to restrict coverage of those who did negative press, then he'd never hold a press conference. So your argument that Bush only provides access to those who approve of him is wrong.

That's simply stupid. Press conferences aren't the only access to a President. Duh.

This is in sharp contrast to Obama, who very clearly does not want non-believers on his plane.

And McCain, too, I guess. But since Obama has kept Fox, of course you're proven wrong again.

So to make all that fawning up Bush = Hitler? That just shows unprofessionalism.

What? When did I said "Bush = Hitler?" You've Godwinized yourself!

Quit making up arguments in your head, Ben.

And yes, the media was quite unprofessional.

It's the same issue. Perception can be far different then reality and gaging whether something is conservative or liberal is a matter of perception and subjective.

That's why you have an independent entity like the FCC to moderate it. We're not talking about balancing opinions, btw, BK. The doctrine is about balancing presentation of factual material. They don't even have to be balanced about it--they just have to present it. They can devote 99% of their air time to a view and just have to provide that 1% of contrasting view and the doctrine's requirements have been met.

It is censorship if they say you cannot broadcast unless you also broadcast the opposite point of view.

No it isn't. You'll note that the SCOTUS has already determined this not to be the case. Why must you insist on being wrong?

What your saying is akin to saying that someone should be able to broadcast unmittigated slander, because to require them to stick to facts would be censorship.

Bush never packed courts.

But it does mean agreeing with you without evidence?

It's your argument. Convince me that it's true and I'll believe you.

Guynemer already cited the statement from the McCain campaign, you dolt.

I think it's wrong whomever does it, McCain or Obama.

I think a candidate can do whatever he wants with his private campaign plane press seats. That's part of American freedom, which you apparently loathe.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Seedle


How so? Because it favors white kids, who tend to do better on tests, (but I don't believe that's genetic) or because it favors black kids, who tend to be lower on the economic ladder and therefore need the money more (but I can't imagine any serious, extensive outcry against a plan that rewards poor kids with money for educating themselves.) Or am I missing something?

White kids would get paid more than black kids, hence subsidizing one race over another. The mere fact that it's a totally objective, unbiased measure of performance is irrelevant.


(If you can't tell, of course I'm being sarcastic. But you and I know that the argument would degenerate to the topic of race, which is why no politician would touch it.)

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Darius871


WTF? I never said one peep about Americans being dumber than people from other countries, or about the "worth" of any country, or about who is "superior" to whom. I was simply countering Boris' absurd optimism about how news-savvy and intellectual the voting public is, and nothing more.

Until some Euro comes on and uses those polls to diss on America, you're whacking at a straw man here. But at least you're beating him!

Well perhaps I did read a little too much into your statement, but the first words were "Seriously, we're talking about a country..." So I took that as an indictment on your part of the country.

[Ben Kenobi]

Forget paying the teachers based on standardized test scores. Start paying the students. That would make a lot of kids give a ****. Obviously, plenty of problems with that plan, not saying it's workable. Hell, may not even improve knowledge levels since tests tend to measure ability to take tests more than anything else. But it would make the kids give a ****.

Bad, bad idea. It means the teachers can play favourites.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Darius871
You mean those people in the clip who said straight-up that they are voting? Even in reference to the Jaywalk/COPS crowd, I fail to see how irresponsibility and/or stupidity affects probability of voting to the extent that you do.

What proof does this clip offer that it's representative sample of typical voters?

Come on, you're smarter than that. Do you think maybe they're editing out people who actually did know things about the election, and just focusing on the stupid people for maximum comic effect? That's how these gags work, whether it's Leno or Stern or whatever. Come across someone who knows their ****? Boring, lets move on to the morons!

Seriously, we're talking about a country where only 75% of people know our independence was from England, only 80% of people know Earth revolves around the sun, and over 50% of people vote. Why should I assume that very few of the the retarded 20-25% are among that voting 50%+?

Yeah, but again, those who actually go out and VOTE is a more self-selecting sample. And when you have an issue that is put to the forefront of national media like the Wright issue was, even people not attuned to the election are going to have some familiarity with it.

I'm not saying everyone, but you said "miniscule," which is simply ridiculous. You haven't even supplied any data to support that claim, anyway.

Dude, you live in freakin' Portland. Talk about non-representative samples...

Yeah, because I never leave Portland or converse with people in other places on something like the internet or anything like that.

[Darius871]

"A" country as distinct from "the" country. It implies nothing comparative.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Bad, bad idea. It means the teachers can play favourites.

Good God, Ben. Reality, try it for once in your life.

STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE NOT GRADED BY TEACHERS, THEREFORE THEY CANNOT PLAY FAVORITES. And as far as instruction goes, there are these little places called libraries. So if a teacher isn't doing there job properly, there are other avenues of learning. Though, admittedly, depending on the subject and the student, a good instructor is much more effective than self-teaching.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Darius871
I was simply countering Boris' absurd optimism about how news-savvy and intellectual the voting public is, and nothing more.

Why do you have a habit of misrepresenting things I've said? I'm starting to think you have a fetish.

There wasn't anything optimistic about my observation that most people had heard of Wright, as I think a large part of the people who have heard of him have done so through means that aren't factually correct and thus not inclined to present the situation accurately or fairly.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/

McCain
desperate, but

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Why do you have a habit of misrepresenting things I've said? I'm starting to think you have a fetish.

There wasn't anything optimistic about my observation that most people had heard of Wright, as I think a large part of the people who have heard of him have done so through means that aren't factually correct and thus not inclined to present the situation accurately or fairly.

You were "optimistic" in the sense that oh-so-many voters supposedly followed the Wright controversy during the primaries, and would therefore probably know by now that there is nothing to it, and would therefore probably not switch from an Obama vote, thus rendering this last-minute barrage of the Wright issue ineffective against Obama, as opposed to my "pessimistic" view that incredibly few voters followed details of the primaries that closely, and would therefore not be aware yet that there's nothing to the story and would not have the time or inclination to become fully educated about its nuances inside the mere 48 hours left, and would therefore learn "through means that aren't factually correct," thus rendering the barrage more effective. In the context of how this all started that's not that much of a misrepresentation.

[Seedle]

Help me out with the Rev. Wright controversy. Reading on Wikipedia (which is probably my first mistake right there) he plays the racial victim card a little too strongly, and his accusation of the government creating HIV to destroy blacks is absurd (and the wrong minority, was he not around in the '80's? CRACK for blacks, HIV was for gays. ). But over all I agree with his statements (on Wiki) more than I disagree. And his points, that violence begets violence, and that you should trust God more than Government, are hardly offensive, and in the case of the latter, something the right should be rallying behind, not decrying.

Anyway, I see why the guy is not optimal in terms of presidential associations. But I don't see why he is as big a deal as he is. But I also get the feeling that wiki is leaning left here. So am I missing something, or is this all blown out of proportion?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Seedle
Help me out with the Rev. Wright controversy. Reading on Wikipedia (which is probably my first mistake right there) he plays the racial victim card a little too strongly, and his accusation of the government creating HIV to destroy blacks is absurd (and the wrong minority, was he not around in the '80's? CRACK for blacks, HIV was for gays. ). But over all I agree with his statements (on Wiki) more than I disagree. And his points, that violence begets violence, and that you should trust God more than Government, are hardly offensive, and in the case of the latter, something the right should be rallying behind, not decrying.

Anyway, I see why the guy is not optimal in terms of presidential associations. But I don't see why he is as big a deal as he is. But I also get the feeling that wiki is leaning left here. So am I missing something, or is this all blown out of proportion?

See, again you're making the mistake of doing actual research and making a conclusion based on a wide array of facts. That thought process has absolutely nothing to do with the political capital this provides. Most voters just need to hear "god damn America," "U.S. of KKKA," and criticism of Israel and go on their merry way without followup.