Jesus Was a Liberal

[argexpat]

Do you believe that only Catholics will make it to heaven?

Are non-Christians going to heaven?

 

[Fantasea]

This may be the most ignorant response I've ever read from you, yet is so laughable, so idiotic, that I must respond (hell, it'll give me a good laugh).

First, you say Republicans wish not that the poor were treated better, but wish the poor were in fact not poor. Are you completely ignorant of competition? Competition in the job market absolutely ensures that not only will some people have to be poor, but also that a minority will be rich. You completely fail to account for the beloved principle of competition every time your start typing this cute little response of your ("I just want no one to be poor"). If you knew anything, you'd know that having 'no one be poor' isn't possible.

Then you say that if people follow my advice, they will be poor. Fighting for social justice means everyone will be poor. Are you serious, or was that a pathetic attempt at a joke. Honestly, I know you're smarter than this. Start picking good argumnets for capitalism please. And rich is relative, as I before have pointed out. 'Rich' is relative to the richest people. Following this, we see that the poor are getting poorer, the rich richer.

Your next bit of idiocy again describes capitalism without accounting for competition. You have got to face it Fant, everyone CANNOT be rich, I'm sorry. Under capitalism, the majority will be poor (in the US, where regulations exist, the majority is well off, note that when I say 'majority' I mean internationally, not nationally), always.

When you say that when people become rich, they tend to not favor redistributive policy, you are right. Capitalism preaches greed, self-interest, and to hell with everyone else. Of course the rich will be against redistribution. Once again, we see that the system is at fault, not the people. But again, I cannot belive how foolish you have become. Get it through your head that not everyone, not even the majority can be rich, and then accept it. Please, please pick a new argument for the system you so love, because 'everyone benefits from it' is not an argument that stands up for capitalism.

You will notice that I skip the religious talk, because I myself am not too educated in any theology. But I will say that I can't believe you think that people can follow the word of Jesus exactly, without faltering. It simply isn't reasonable, nor possible. Even the righteous, infallible, omniscient Fantasea has lied continually (perhaps you know no better) in these little discussions.

Suffice it to say that the more naysayers of your stripe, the less competition for those who understand the wonders of capitalism and the opportunities that exist in the good old USA.

 

[SpheryEyne]

First, let me extend a "Welcome aboard".

Thanks for the welcome! I'm happy to be here. :mrgreen:

In a country that spends an average of ten thousand dollars a year on K-12 education, there is nobody who "never received those opportunities for success". Do the math and you'll find that amounts to one hundred thirty thousand dollars to put one child through school from kindergarten to a high school diploma.

According to this page, the average per-pupil spending was $8,855 in the 2000-2001 school year. If this amount was spent on every student in the country, I would find no problem with your statement that everyone has equal opportunities for learning. As it is, however, students in Washington, D.C. get $14,234 each year, while students in Utah have only $5,815 (which will pay for what -- a fifth of a teacher?). This situation is inequitable from the very start, and this doesn't even take into account the differences between school districts even within states.

As the federal government pays for about 8 percent of educational costs for a student, the vast majority of funds comes from the state and the school district. In most states, some combination of an allocation of state funds and the property taxes of those living within each district pays for public schools. As you might guess, this causes an even deeper rift between the quality of education in richer districts (mostly suburban areas) and poorer districts (rural and inner-city areas). The more affluent the people in the district, the more funding the school receives from the property taxes; poorer districts take in less money from property taxes, and in most cases the allocation from the state's already-strained budget is not enough to make up the difference. Thus kids who come from wealthier neighborhoods already have more resources spent on them than kids from less wealthy neighborhoods. Please tell me, if you can, how does this system provide an equal "opportunity for success" to all our children?

Drat. Wish I had more time. I'll try to respond to your other points later, though.

SE

 

[Mixed View]

Hey Gazara UK , do you like my signature now? I like it.

 

[AHSPolitician]

Are non-Christians going to heaven?

The idea presented in the Bible is that ANYONE who believes in Jesus Christ would not perish but have eternal life.

So in a way the answer to your question is: yes...It appears to me that only Christians will enter heaven in the sense presented in the New Testament. Receiving "eternal life", according to the gospels, must be preceded by belief in Jesus Christ.

Many other denominations have this idea of heaven too, depending on what you believe, depending on your faith life.

So in a way the answer to your question is: no...If other religions have a "heaven" "paradise" or whatever, then sure, they probably will go to whatever heaven they have in mind.

I don't know the answer to your question. You should consult your local theologian, or just ask God.

The purpose of my question to Fantasea was to make a point about the many different beliefs that Christians have. It appeared that he believed that only Catholics go to heaven. But I can name many Catholics who don't believe that at all.

The point is: RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE A JUSTIFICATION FOR PUBLIC POLICY simply because here in America we have such a wide spectrum of religious belief. We can never tell if Jesus was a liberal or a conservative, just like we can't really tell if only Catholics go to heaven, or if all Christians go to heaven, or if there even is a heaven. Many people have many different beliefs, and I would have to say that Fantesea is one of those many people with different beliefs. Is he the only one going to heaven?

What do you think?

 

[Arch Enemy]

Hey Gazara UK , do you like my signature now? I like it.

Amazes me how much you know about God.. I could have sworn Christian teachings taught that we'd never understand God... I could be wrong.. I haven't gone to Church in 1 whole week.

 

[GarzaUK]

Hey Gazara UK , do you like my signature now? I like it.

lol just pointing out an inconsistency satin, you know I love you lol

 

[Fantasea]

Thanks for the welcome! I'm happy to be here. :mrgreen:

According to this page, the average per-pupil spending was $8,855 in the 2000-2001 school year. If this amount was spent on every student in the country, I would find no problem with your statement that everyone has equal opportunities for learning. As it is, however, students in Washington, D.C. get $14,234 each year, while students in Utah have only $5,815 (which will pay for what -- a fifth of a teacher?). This situation is inequitable from the very start, and this doesn't even take into account the differences between school districts even within states.

Really? So far, you've done part of the job. The next part is to look up the performance rankings by state and compare them to dollars spent. Then you'll have a better idea of how dollars spent relate to performance achieved.

As the federal government pays for about 8 percent of educational costs for a student, the vast majority of funds comes from the state and the school district. In most states, some combination of an allocation of state funds and the property taxes of those living within each district pays for public schools. As you might guess, this causes an even deeper rift between the quality of education in richer districts (mostly suburban areas) and poorer districts (rural and inner-city areas). The more affluent the people in the district, the more funding the school receives from the property taxes; poorer districts take in less money from property taxes, and in most cases the allocation from the state's already-strained budget is not enough to make up the difference. Thus kids who come from wealthier neighborhoods already have more resources spent on them than kids from less wealthy neighborhoods. Please tell me, if you can, how does this system provide an equal "opportunity for success" to all our children?

Many students from ghetto schools go on to higher education; many students in wealthier school districts do not. It is not the money spent so much as the effort of the individual that is the determinant.

 

[4theLamb]

argexpat------ I am curious to what your definition of a conservative and a liberal are. You seem to be under the impression that conservatives are all just a bunch of death loving money hungry people. This is just simply not true.

I know of alot of conservatives that willfully and cheerfully give help to people who are in need.

There is nothing scriptually wrong with: war, the death penalty, and the lowering taxes so the people who make the money can decide what they want to do with it.

 

[anomaly]

Suffice it to say that the more naysayers of your stripe, the less competition for those who understand the wonders of capitalism and the opportunities that exist in the good old USA.

Let me be of some helpto you. What you understand as 'capitalism' is actually a mixed economy, as Gabo has previously pointed out. Let us now turn to the "wonders of capitalism", as you call them. China, India and Argentina all have much more capitalistic economies than the USA. And yet, amazingly, US citizens enjoy a much higher quality life than all three. A mixed economy clearly is better than a capitalist economy. One can even see a general trend that the more nationalised an economy is, the greater quality of life will be enjoyed by citizens under that economy. Yet you insist on the wonders, which are so far unseen, of capitalism. And, it is well to point out that as the US as deregulated over the past 20-30 years, so has our standard of living lowered, relaticve to those of Europe and Japan. Logically, one would want more nationalisation with a democratic government, in order to give a greater quality of life to more people. But I have forgotten, the capitalist is beyond logic, blind to it.

 

[Fantasea]

Let me be of some helpto you. What you understand as 'capitalism' is actually a mixed economy, as Gabo has previously pointed out. Let us now turn to the "wonders of capitalism", as you call them. China, India and Argentina all have much more capitalistic economies than the USA. And yet, amazingly, US citizens enjoy a much higher quality life than all three. A mixed economy clearly is better than a capitalist economy.

The countries you mention are just beginning to scratch the surface of capitalism and already their people are benefitting in many ways. As development continues their standards will continue to rise.

One can even see a general trend that the more nationalised an economy is, the greater quality of life will be enjoyed by citizens under that economy.

Will you next be citing the former USSR and its satellites as the epitome of living standards in a nationalized society?

Yet you insist on the wonders, which are so far unseen, of capitalism. And, it is well to point out that as the US as deregulated over the past 20-30 years, so has our standard of living lowered, relaticve to those of Europe and Japan.

I don't know what measure you use, but if one considers what is accomplished with family income in the US, living standards in other countries take a back seat.

Logically, one would want more nationalisation with a democratic government, in order to give a greater quality of life to more people. But I have forgotten, the capitalist is beyond logic, blind to it.

You read a lot. However, you have not experienced very much.

 

[anomaly]

The countries you mention are just beginning to scratch the surface of capitalism and already their people are benefitting in many ways. As development continues their standards will continue to rise.

There is no evidence that standards are rising in any of those countries. A huge amount in each live in poverty.

Will you next be citing the former USSR and its satellites as the epitome of living standards in a nationalized society?

The USSR was a nation under a dictator. Can one man run an economy? No. Can a people run an economy. Well, not according to you, but I'd say yes. You simply want the richest people to have all the power. Fight for that pathetic utopia of yours, Fant!

I don't know what measure you use, but if one considers what is accomplished with family income in the US, living standards in other countries take a back seat.[/Fant]
Actually, I believe that in Japan, all things considered, the standard of living is highest. Not sure on that, though.

You read a lot. However, you have not experienced very much.

Does this mean that you don't read and that you haven't experienced a lot? And what arrogance you possess! You, being older than me, are automatically my superior. But what can one expect from a capitalist? You know, Che Guevara didn't become a socialist until he experienced the world, so it is not true that experience leads to being a capitalist. Perhaps you should experience this world, Fant. Travel to Latin America and Southeast Asia, and see if you remain a capitalist.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Many students from ghetto schools go on to higher education; many students in wealthier school districts do not. It is not the money spent so much as the effort of the individual that is the determinant.

PROVE IT STATISTICALLY or stop making BS generalizations. Show us how "MANY STUDENTS" from what you term "GHETTO" (Nice term, very politically correct, ever consider underprivileged or poor?) schools go on to COLLEGE.

Show us exactly what percentage that is, and then show us what percentage from "wealthier" (define wealthier too) districts do not.

Your constant use of non-factual generalizations demands that a challenge to your posts be made, for they're inaccurate and have no basis of truth.

Once again I ask that you PROVE to us how "MANY STUDENTS" from what you term "GHETTO" (Nice term, very politically correct, ever consider underprivileged or poor?) schools go on to COLLEGE.
:lamo

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Many students from ghetto schools go on to higher education; many students in wealthier school districts do not. It is not the money spent so much as the effort of the individual that is the determinant.

First, for your edification, an old adage. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." (That refers to the "effort of the individual".)

Some kids want to be educated; some do not. Will you agree with that?

PROVE IT STATISTICALLY or stop making BS generalizations. Show us how "MANY STUDENTS" from what you term "GHETTO" (Nice term, very politically correct, ever consider underprivileged or poor?) schools go on to COLLEGE.

Encyclopedia: open enrollment, a policy of admitting to college all high-school graduates in an effort to provide a higher education for all who desire it. To critics it means an inevitable lowering of standards as a considerable effort must be devoted to development of basic skills. The most ambitious programs of open enrollment in the United States have been undertaken in California and New York City. Under California's system, codified in 1960, high-school graduates in the top eighth of their class may attend a Univ. of California campus. Those in the top third qualify for a state university. All the rest may attend a two-year community college. New York City's plan, begun in 1970, guarantees every high-school graduate, academic or vocational, a place in a city college. Other states and municipalities have similar arrangements.

Being a Yankee fan, I would have expected you to know that. However, it only goes to prove that all Yankee fans don't know everything, doesn't it.

Show us exactly what percentage that is, and then show us what percentage from "wealthier" (define wealthier too) districts do not.

Given the above, percentages and definitions are not necessary. As you can see, there's a place for any kid with a high-school diploma, if the kid wants it.

Your constant use of non-factual generalizations demands that a challenge to your posts be made, for they're inaccurate and have no basis of truth.

Once again I ask that you PROVE to us how "MANY STUDENTS" from what you term "GHETTO" (Nice term, very politically correct, ever consider underprivileged or poor?) schools go on to COLLEGE.

Ho-hum.

In an earlier post, I offered to give you the name of a ghetto high school in your neck of the woods, 97% of whose graduates go on to college. You said you already knew which school that was. So why all this noise now?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Some kids want to be educated; some do not. Will you agree with that?

What's your point Mr Generalization? Some kids are given the opportunity to be educated not because of who they are, but because of where they are. You can't choose your parents. I'll throw something at you that you're unaccustomed to using when debating, it's called a FACT:

How The Public Schools Are Failing Our Children -- The Drop Out Problem

Some reports estimate that 25-30% of U.S. students drop out before completing high school. A study by Harvard University and the Urban Institute found that 31 per cent of the high school students in California fail to graduate on time. Source: "The Dropout State," Irvine Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 13 (Winter 2005) -- http://www.irvine.org/publications/iq/youth.shtml. The Harvard-Urban Institute study found even lower on time graduation rates for African-American and Latino students. An earlier study reported that Cleveland has a graduation rate as low as 28 percent, Chicago, 48 percent; Dallas, 52 percent; and New York and Baltimore with graduation rates of only 54 percent. This study found that only "56 percent of African Americans nationwide and 54 percent of Latinos" complete high school. Source: Matthews, "Area Schools Rank High in Graduating Minorities," Washington Post, November 14, 2001, A1, A25, citing a study by Jay P. Greene, senior fellow at Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, conducted for the Black Alliance for Educational Options.
(snip)

"In Philadelphia, nearly half the students who enter ninth grade do not graduate four years later."

"Johns Hopkins University researchers have found that much of the problem is concentrated in a few hundred high schools in 35 of the nation's largest cities. The schools are typically poor and have large black and Hispanic populations. Generally, less than half their freshman classes graduate four years later."

Source: http://www.seedsofchange.org/schools_failing_dropouts.htm

How about wealthier kids not in poor neighboorhoods?

One prominent school choice advocacy group, the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), has adopted as mantra that school choice is widespread, unless you're poor. Middle-class and wealthy families have the means to choose neighborhoods with good public schools or send their children to private schools. Tens of millions choose where to live because of the quality of schools nearby; something people of lesser means cannot do.

Source: http://www.allianceforschoolchoice.org/media_20040818_NYP_OpEd.php

So despite Fantasea's generalizations, the truth is that economic factors have a whole lot more to do with academic success than "some kids want it, some do not." That thought is either racially biased on purpose by Fantasea or just plain ignorant. There are no creditable facts that support his blustering statment(s).

Statements like Fantaseas are nothing more than race/class inspired bias IMHO. Democrats (me included) want to help those who need economic assistance directly. That is what Dems do. Fantasea, and Republicans like him make racially biased statements like "some kids want it, some do not." Then they cut taxes for the wealthy yet do nothing to help the poor improve their chance for scholastic success by, for example, putting more money into poor neighborhood schools and less money into wealthy neighborhood schools where parents would be more apt to help subsidize the gap created by a disbalanced distribution of available funds.

Encyclopedia: open enrollment, a policy of admitting to college all high-school graduates in an effort to provide a higher education for all who desire it. To critics it means an inevitable lowering of standards as a considerable effort must be devoted to development of basic skills. The most ambitious programs of open enrollment in the United States have been undertaken in California and New York City. Under California's system, codified in 1960, high-school graduates in the top eighth of their class may attend a Univ. of California campus. Those in the top third qualify for a state university. All the rest may attend a two-year community college. New York City's plan, begun in 1970, guarantees every high-school graduate, academic or vocational, a place in a city college. Other states and municipalities have similar arrangements.

This is a racially biased argument, again, because the poorer neighborhood grads (remember that the graduation rate is much, much lower in poor neighborhoods than wealthy) are less likely to "afford" to allocate the time needed for college due to economic necessity. Simply put, they cannot afford to live and go to school at the same time, their parents cannot support their efforts like wealthier parents can. Expecting that they work full-time & go to college will realistically eliminate a lot of potential students. There are many exceptions, of course, who do work full-time and attend school, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

As you can see, there's a place for any kid with a high-school diploma, if the kid wants it.
Ho-hum.

Not Ho-Hum, sorry. More like racial prejudice, pure and unadulterated. This is the smoke screen created by this logic. The inevitable denial of bigotry is sure to follow. It's quite devious IMHO. Just read the next quote from Fantasea to see his racial bias:

In an earlier post, I offered to give you the name of a ghetto high school in your neck of the woods, 97% of whose graduates go on to college. You said you already knew which school that was. So why all this noise now?

Note that I made it clear to Fantasea that using the term GHETTO is a backhanded racial slur, but because he wants to belittle me and because he has no respect for other races he used it again, on purpose, despite knowing that it's a slur. Subtle racism, a perfect example.

Secondly, his absurd point about the unusual poor neighboorhood school that has a 97% graduation rate is actually, in reality two things:

1. That school is a school that kids must test for to be admitted. It's not a neighborhood school. It's also a school that was allowed to slect its teachers, not having them assigned by the school board. This school was able to recruit top teachers with the assurance that the kids they will be teaching are all top students. To suggest that this is typical, average, normal or proof that anyone can succeed from any neighboorhood is pure :bs

2. The neighboorhood school in the same district is even worse than the normal worst schools because their better students have been removed leaving the overall average in this school horribly poor. This school doesn't get to recruit it's teachers, it has to accept teachers who are willing to teach in one of the poorest neighborhoods to kids they know have been academically stifled due to where they live and the quality of schools in that area. Translation? Overall the quality of teachers compared to wealthy neighborhood school's teachers have as big a gap as the academic success variance between poor and rich neighborhoods.

It really is nasty when someone spreads prejudice by making statements like:

Some kids want to be educated; some do not. Will you agree with that?

As you can see, there's a place for any kid with a high-school diploma, if the kid wants it.
Ho-hum.

I offered to give you the name of a ghetto high school in your neck of the woods, 97% of whose graduates go on to college.

:spank:

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Some kids want to be educated; some do not. Will you agree with that?

You failed to answer the question. Why?

What's your point Mr Generalization? Some kids are given the opportunity to be educated not because of who they are, but because of where they are. You can't choose your parents.

So, now you’re blaming the parents. Many folks will agree with you.

I'll throw something at you that you're unaccustomed to using when debating, it's called a FACT:
Quote:
How The Public Schools Are Failing Our Children -- The Drop Out Problem

Some reports estimate that 25-30% of U.S. students drop out before completing high school. A study by Harvard University and the Urban Institute found that 31 per cent of the high school students in California fail to graduate on time. Source: "The Dropout State," Irvine Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 13 (Winter 2005) -- http://www.irvine.org/publications/iq/youth.shtml. The Harvard-Urban Institute study found even lower on time graduation rates for African-American and Latino students. An earlier study reported that Cleveland has a graduation rate as low as 28 percent, Chicago, 48 percent; Dallas, 52 percent; and New York and Baltimore with graduation rates of only 54 percent. This study found that only "56 percent of African Americans nationwide and 54 percent of Latinos" complete high school. Source: Matthews, "Area Schools Rank High in Graduating Minorities," Washington Post, November 14, 2001, A1, A25, citing a study by Jay P. Greene, senior fellow at Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, conducted for the Black Alliance for Educational Options.
(snip)

"In Philadelphia, nearly half the students who enter ninth grade do not graduate four years later."

"Johns Hopkins University researchers have found that much of the problem is concentrated in a few hundred high schools in 35 of the nation's largest cities. The schools are typically poor and have large black and Hispanic populations. Generally, less than half their freshman classes graduate four years later."

Source: http://www.seedsofchange.org/school...ng_dropouts.htm

You have listed all of the lousy performance that has resulted from the forty years that the Democratic Party and the socialist-lib-dem union apologists were in control of the public education system. Now that the Republicans are trying to clean up the mess, they first have to fight the embarrassed Democrats and the self-serving unions who know that the best way to get the money to go up is to keep student performance going down.

How about wealthier kids not in poor neighboorhoods?
Quote:
One prominent school choice advocacy group, the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), has adopted as mantra that school choice is widespread, unless you're poor. Middle-class and wealthy families have the means to choose neighborhoods with good public schools or send their children to private schools. Tens of millions choose where to live because of the quality of schools nearby; something people of lesser means cannot do.

Source: http://www.allianceforschoolchoice....18_NYP_OpEd.php


So despite Fantasea's generalizations, the truth is that economic factors have a whole lot more to do with academic success than "some kids want it, some do not." That thought is either racially biased on purpose by Fantasea or just plain ignorant. There are no creditable facts that support his blustering statment(s).

It sounds as if you’re advocating ‘school vouchers’ as a way to allow kids to escape from failing schools; of if you’re not, you should be. If a school hasn’t been ‘fixed’ in forty years, what makes one think it will ever be ‘fixed’?

Statements like Fantaseas are nothing more than race/class inspired bias IMHO. Democrats (me included) want to help those who need economic assistance directly. That is what Dems do. Fantasea, and Republicans like him make racially biased statements like "some kids want it, some do not." Then they cut taxes for the wealthy yet do nothing to help the poor improve their chance for scholastic success by, for example, putting more money into poor neighborhood schools and less money into wealthy neighborhood schools where parents would be more apt to help subsidize the gap created by a disbalanced distribution of available funds.

It is not, never has been, and never will be the money. Not when a national average of nearly five thousand dollars per semester is being spent to educate one kid K-12.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Encyclopedia: open enrollment, a policy of admitting to college all high-school graduates in an effort to provide a higher education for all who desire it. To critics it means an inevitable lowering of standards as a considerable effort must be devoted to development of basic skills. The most ambitious programs of open enrollment in the United States have been undertaken in California and New York City. Under California's system, codified in 1960, high-school graduates in the top eighth of their class may attend a Univ. of California campus. Those in the top third qualify for a state university. All the rest may attend a two-year community college. New York City's plan, begun in 1970, guarantees every high-school graduate, academic or vocational, a place in a city college. Other states and municipalities have similar arrangements.

This is a racially biased argument, again, because the poorer neighborhood grads (remember that the graduation rate is much, much lower in poor neighborhoods than wealthy) are less likely to "afford" to allocate the time needed for college due to economic necessity. Simply put, they cannot afford to live and go to school at the same time, their parents cannot support their efforts like wealthier parents can. Expecting that they work full-time & go to college will realistically eliminate a lot of potential students. There are many exceptions, of course, who do work full-time and attend school, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

I have to hand it to you. Even when it’s free, you find a way to justify throwing it away.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
As you can see, there's a place for any kid with a high-school diploma, if the kid wants it.
Ho-hum.

Not Ho-Hum, sorry. More like racial prejudice, pure and unadulterated. This is the smoke screen created by this logic. The inevitable denial of bigotry is sure to follow. It's quite devious IMHO. Just read the next quote from Fantasea to see his racial bias:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
In an earlier post, I offered to give you the name of a ghetto high school in your neck of the woods, 97% of whose graduates go on to college. You said you already knew which school that was. So why all this noise now?

Note that I made it clear to Fantasea that using the term GHETTO is a backhanded racial slur, but because he wants to belittle me and because he has no respect for other races he used it again, on purpose, despite knowing that it's a slur. Subtle racism, a perfect example.

Secondly, his absurd point about the unusual poor neighboorhood school that has a 97% graduation rate is actually, in reality two things:

1. That school is a school that kids must test for to be admitted. It's not a neighborhood school. It's also a school that was allowed to slect its teachers, not having them assigned by the school board. This school was able to recruit top teachers with the assurance that the kids they will be teaching are all top students. To suggest that this is typical, average, normal or proof that anyone can succeed from any neighboorhood is pure

2. The neighboorhood school in the same district is even worse than the normal worst schools because their better students have been removed leaving the overall average in this school horribly poor. This school doesn't get to recruit it's teachers, it has to accept teachers who are willing to teach in one of the poorest neighborhoods to kids they know have been academically stifled due to where they live and the quality of schools in that area. Translation? Overall the quality of teachers compared to wealthy neighborhood school's teachers have as big a gap as the academic success variance between poor and rich neighborhoods.

You have removed all vestiges of responsibility from both the students and the parents.

It really is nasty when someone spreads prejudice by making statements like:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Some kids want to be educated; some do not. Will you agree with that?

As you can see, there's a place for any kid with a high-school diploma, if the kid wants it.
Ho-hum.

I offered to give you the name of a ghetto high school in your neck of the woods, 97% of whose graduates go on to college.

You mock, you deny, you disparage, you accuse, you squirm. The only thing your post lacks is an expression of an understanding of, and a willingness to acknowledge, the truth. Other than that, it's right on target.

 

[26 X World Champs]

So, now you’re blaming the parents. Many folks will agree with you.

My post was not about Democrats or Republicans. It was about YOU. It exposes you as a bigoted person who is living in some weird Fantasea world.

My last post clearly showed many examples of racially biased comments by you, constantly, actually. Every statement you've made about education is racially motivated.

You would have enjoyed living in the 1850s in Alabama....you're alive at the wrong time...Maybe it's genetic? Where were your family in 1850?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
So, now you’re blaming the parents. Many folks will agree with you.

I was simply echoing what you wrote, to make sure I had understood you correctly.

My post was not about Democrats or Republicans. It was about YOU. It exposes you as a bigoted person who is living in some weird Fantasea world.

My last post clearly showed many examples of racially biased comments by you, constantly, actually. Every statement you've made about education is racially motivated.

Is the reason for your belligerence possibly related to a leftover stash of that stuff you told me you were so fond of in 1978?

You would have enjoyed living in the 1850s in Alabama....you're alive at the wrong time...Maybe it's genetic? Where were your family in 1850?

You speak a well English. Have you been here a long distance?

Once again, and this is getting to be a bore, you simply deny, mock, and all that other stuff I usually include. But you must know it by heart so I won't repeat the whole thing.

 

[AHSPolitician]

Some kids are given the opportunity to be educated not because of who they are, but because of where they are. You can't choose your parents.

"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan, 3x Democratic Presidential Nominee, Democratic Representative from State of Nebraska (1891-1895).

How's that for Democratic values?

 

[shuamort]

"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan, 3x Democratic Presidential Nominee, Democratic Representative from State of Nebraska (1891-1895).

How's that for Democratic values?

I can't help but post H.L. Mencken's opinion of Bryan, when WJB was prosecuting John Scopes for teaching evolution:
"Once he had one leg in the White House and the nation trembled under his roars. Now he is a tinpot pope in the Coca-Cola belt and a brother to forlorn pastors who belabor halfwits in galvanized iron tabernacles behind the railroad yards….It is a tragedy, indeed, to begin life as a hero and to end it as a buffoon."

 

[aquapub]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Jesus would have had issues with partial-birth abortion on demand, corrupt labor unions, frivolous lawsuits, pity parties for child-rapists and muslim terrorists, racism, atheism, moral subjectivity, political correctness, ultra-rich, elitist snobs like George Soros or...well, all of Hollywood, and nearly all the other things liberals stand for. Being a pacifist is all Jesus had in common with the left, and that cannot undo the plethora of other weak-minded, visionless, destructive things the left does in the course of siding with all this country's enemies and attacking anyone who actually does have values.

 

[Pacridge]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Jesus would have had issues with partial-birth abortion on demand, corrupt labor unions, frivolous lawsuits, pity parties for child-rapists and muslim terrorists, racism, atheism, moral subjectivity, political correctness, ultra-rich, elitist snobs like George Soros or...well, all of Hollywood, and nearly all the other things liberals stand for. Being a pacifist is all Jesus had in common with the left, and that cannot undo the plethora of other weak-minded, visionless, destructive things the left does in the course of siding with all this country's enemies and attacking anyone who actually does have values.

I think Jesus would have disliked all abortions. But I think Jesus would have found much more to dislike with the ultra-rich, elitist, greedy, capitalistic snobs such as George W. Bush and Richard Mellon Scaife's then he would with Soro’s.

 

[Contrarian]

I have a sneaking suspicion that Jesus would have had issues with partial-birth abortion on demand, corrupt labor unions, frivolous lawsuits, pity parties for child-rapists and muslim terrorists, racism, atheism, moral subjectivity, political correctness, ultra-rich, elitist snobs like George Soros or...well, all of Hollywood, and nearly all the other things liberals stand for. Being a pacifist is all Jesus had in common with the left, and that cannot undo the plethora of other weak-minded, visionless, destructive things the left does in the course of siding with all this country's enemies and attacking anyone who actually does have values.

I think he would have disliked even more the profiteering in his name. The ostentatious nature of the Catholic Church. The sexual abuse of children at the hands of his Priests. The indescriminate killing of the Crusades in His name. The con game called Evangelicalism which fleeces old people out of their life savings and makes people like the Bakkers and Billy Graham rich. He would throw up at the thought of MEl Gibson making hundreds of millions of dollars using him as a star of the ultra violent snuff movie. He would cry at the thought of Jesus Insurance companies, Jesus loan companies, Jesus video games and one of my personal favorites a Restaurant for Jesus where the waiters come to your table and pray with you before your meal.

So stop Lib bashing and realize that there is stupidity, weakness, corruption and poor judgement on both sides. Your belief that Conservatives are the only correct virtuous people is not only incorrect, it shows you have no capablity for any thought outside party lines.

 

[Pacridge]

I think he would have disliked even more the profiteering in his name. The ostentatious nature of the Catholic Church. The sexual abuse of children at the hands of his Priests. The indescriminate killing of the Crusades in His name. The con game called Evangelicalism which fleeces old people out of their life savings and makes people like the Bakkers and Billy Graham rich. He would throw up at the thought of MEl Gibson making hundreds of millions of dollars using him as a star of the ultra violent snuff movie. He would cry at the thought of Jesus Insurance companies, Jesus loan companies, Jesus video games and one of my personal favorites a Restaurant for Jesus where the waiters come to your table and pray with you before your meal.

So stop Lib bashing and realize that there is stupidity, weakness, corruption and poor judgement on both sides. Your belief that Conservatives are the only correct virtuous people is not only incorrect, it shows you have no capablity for any thought outside party lines.

One of my favorites was a woman I recently saw hawking a candle she said was the “Scent of Jesus.” I have no doubt Jesus would be proud having somebody making a buck off his odor.

 

[shuamort]

One of my favorites was a woman I recently saw hawking a candle she said was the “Scent of Jesus.” I have no doubt Jesus would be proud having somebody making a buck off his odor.

Talk about half a story, Pac, c'mon, tell us what it (or He) smelled like!