BUSH

What do you think about president bush?

*head hits table* for the love of god.... please...... dont get on this subject......

As Marbro said, politics is always tredding dangerous ground for conversation...

Nice guy that has no buisness in the White House. He gave me an Achievement Award.

......... has no business in the white house....... that would be treading on that ground tom was talking about....... I have just a few words of wisdom, 1 dont try to blame anything on a president that has been a growing problem long before he was in office, oddly enough hes not the only president that weve had. 2 he is the commander and cheif, which means he has control over our military forces, everything else is brought into being ultimately by congress and legislature, so dont tell me the president is worse then those people, cause it takes a lot more then one person to do something that alters our society. Its the objective of each president if fix the screw ups of the previous, and considering the one before bush, there was a lot to fix and there wont be any less that needs fixed come 2008

If the president were all powerful, there wouldnt be laws in place that could have him impeached or have his policies and orders overruled!!

I dunno how bush has fixed anything. You are right that it takes more than one person to screw up a society, but Bush is leading the Republican party which has control of the House and Senate so i think he did make a profound difference. America was going pretty good before 2000.

and oddly enough the economy was going down hill, people just didnt notice it cause clinton was busy being a playboy and getting the thumbs up for jesse jackson. I didnt say bush fixed anything, but I can say bush didnt take our military forces down to 20% of effective operations.
You can say, oh but cliton went on a campaign for helping children to read! but guess what, they still cant read, I guess that helped didnt it. ^_-
Republican party control over the house and the senate? do you know what that means?! NOTHING! Cause ultimately its left up to them to make the choice, and theyve make choices in spite of what the president has gone for. People are too tied up in republican or democrat to realize that both are capable of doing overly stupid things and blaming the other party for it.
As for things being pretty good before 2000, its still pretty good now, its just society has been bringing out whats the worst in america, and they are doing that all on their own, has nothing to do with the president.

Helping kids read? Have you heard of No Child Left Behind? This was bush's program to "fix" the school system. It didn't fix the problem, it was a stupid program to begin with and it was made worse by bush underfunding. NCLB finds the schools that are have low test scores and cuts thier funding. How does that make sense? Shouldn't these be the schools that get more money so they can get back up to speed? Chances are the reason that the test scores are so low is because the quality of education is terrible b/c the school is in a poor neighborhood. I don't think that America is better today than it was 6 years ago. I don't even think America is the same. We are running RECORD defeciets. Whatever happend to a balanced budget? At least with Clinton there wasn't a record defeciet, in fact there was a surplus. Don't even get me started on civil liberties.

Wow, it is the full and expressed responsibility of the president to help run your life? Its up to those children to make the effort to learn, if those children arent learning anything, its obviously the presidents fault? Evidently the individual states arent funding the public schools either, cause if they were there wouldnt be any need to try to help fund at the federal level. Then, at what point do parents become responsible for helping their children learn along with the school systems?

And your saying at least there wasnt a deficet when clinton was in office, i bet if bush reduced the military down to nothing there would be a surplus right now too. Civil Liberties have nothing to do with how the state or the federal government chooses to spend the money, after all its the people of the state that helped those people into the possitions that they were in, and that ment accepting any choices that they make during their term. Oddly enough a lot of schools goto the parents of the children to help fund the education of their child thats attending the school. Theres a failure in education because of the fact that kids attending school dont care, and some of the wrong people are teachers and became teachers for all the wrong reasons.
The reason test scores are so low is because there are more then enough selfish children out there that dont care to learn and look for other activities to fill their time. So things are the way they are because people stopped giving a damn, oddly enough thats not directly related to the government.

Once again, a situation of pointing fingers at someone when those pointing the fingers have the control.

And you cant say it was a close vote for bush winning, the last election was the largest voter turn out in god knows how long, and he won by what? 300000 votes? or more then that?

The people cant make proper decisions on their own so they see to blame that which they brought into power? And dont make any choices beyond their own petty lives and blame others because they didnt make the effort to help fix the problem and sit there and expect others to do it for them.

At this point i would like to note, I said please dont go onto this subject, and agent, you did just by saying he had no business in office, thats getting on the subject, and I got tired of people attack him long ago, cause people dont want to accept that they do have some control in what goes on in their community

Ahhh, I can't take it and I gotta get at least a little of my say in, please respect me in the morning....... I agree that the whole funding thing is messed up but, if you think about it, either way it could of been handled in that respect (money) isn't going to change anything. Public schools are funded by the government, so basically the government pays the teachers. If the teachers give kids bad grades for not doing the work or them being incompetent teachers (not all, some), they get the shaft. If they do as some are doing, and give kids the grades whether they do anything or not, then you end up with people who shouldn't be in the colleges they are getting into and other hard working students get the shaft. On the other hand, if the pay goes up as grades go down, that money still does nothing to determine how teachers will teach, they just get more money for not teaching. It may even adversly effect schools by getting people to become teachers soley for the money. Bottom line is, it isn't really a matter of money; money doesn't create education. I mean, teachers need to be paid a respectable amount, but the line is that we need good teachers. It's a bad situation; he tried (because Americans would've been mad if he didn't back up that he was going to try to help schools in the election) but didn't get it done because it isn't in his control. As far as Bush being the devil, I definitely agree with marbro here. One man, even if hes the president, doesn't control everything in our system. Checks and balances make it hard to get things done quickly (but they are of course necissary to protect us from a dictator). If Presidents could control everything we'd probably wouldn't be arguing now because Clinton would've made Canada have to close to boarder. Record deficit is due to the war primarily. I really don't want to type my whole arguement about the war, but as far as that goes, we need to realize terrorist attacks have only increased on the US since the 70s. Something needed to be done. I don't necissarily think we went around doing it in the best way, but we need to be support our troops right now, not underfund them to make the deficit look good. I'm done for now.

quote:

Once again, a situation of pointing fingers at someone when those pointing the fingers have the control.

And you cant say it was a close vote for bush winning, the last election was the largest voter turn out in god knows how long, and he won by what? 300000 votes? or more then that?

Exactly.

Man, thats a block of text right there, anyone who reads that whole thing: Props . Lets keep this topic as friendly/unoffensive as possible.

I think everyones bitter on the subject lol

I would just like to say, i didnt cast my vote in this thread ^_- just like i didnt for the 2004 elections, cause i knew bush would win

I don't think I'm bitter just yet, but I definitely love to debate. I'm wierd like that. I kinda view myself as independent, but the Democratic party didn't really have a good candidate for 2004 so, yeah I don't know.

I like to argue more then debate, lol, but i viewed 2004 as, if the other guy got into office, things would be a lot worse right now, but im just bitter cause everyone attacks bush with out any truely justifible reason.

MMM.... I am definately staying out of this 1

Actually the government does have something to do with education. If the government hired more teachers then you would have classrooms with 30 kids to a room. The student to teacher ratio is a big part of education. If the teachers have less students, they can take out the time to help the students one on one which helps a lot. The places that have really bad test scores have no money. Some of these teachers are paid $22,000 a year. I'm pretty sure these are the same schools with 30+ students/class. Leaving everything up to a students is pretty hard. You can't teach yourself everything. Go pickup a book on calculus and try and teach yourself. Some people might be able to do it, but most people cannot. I will agree that good teachers make a difference, but do you think anyone that is smart enough to be a good teacher will work for 22k a year? I don't think so, it is alot easier for them to work in the private sector and get more money. The people that make the best teacher are usually very smart b/c you really have to know your stuff to be able to teach it. If your that smart you can prolly do better than 22k a year.

A good point. 22k is way too low for anyone to be attracted to becoming a teacher, so this crisis could only get worse. Could I therefore assume that the teachers now are mostly good sumaritans who want kids to learn? I really think that this problem is not as much the governments fault as it is the teachers, because teachers definitely have a say on how students, throughout the course of their young lives, are formed into adults. Basically teachers, family, religion, and a person's friends are the big influences in their lives. Then is it just the kids not caring? Something had to instill that. Sure some kids may be born with it, or parenting and what not, but I don't think that accounts for the percentage figure we are seeing of kids not learning/caring. I'm pretty much just typing what I'm thinking right now. Perhaps a pay increase all around is a good start, though it certainly won't fix the whole thing. It may help, but remember that deficit figure you were blaming capt. Bush about.

Yea, i have 3 teachers that gave up higher paying jobs for teaching high school. Not every teacher makes 22k, teachers in a better neighboorhood make more money, some of the top people at our school make 100K. I live in a middle class area and we have really good schools. However, my issue is with inner city schools. The kids in these schools need the direction and motivation of good teachers the most. They also have the least amount of money. We want to fight a war on drugs and crime, but there is no point trying to be tough on crime unless you fix the schools in the areas that the criminals come from. I think that we have to put more money in the inner cities and schools where they need it the most instead of cutting thier funding b/c thier test scores are low. If the test scores are low, there is a reason for it. Someone else mentioned that the kids don't car, you better make them care because the kids that don't care are gonna be the same kids that end up in gangs, sell drugs, kill people, and end up in jails.

You still cant make the kids care, cause there are so many that do get a good education and dont give a damn. Singling out inner city schools as a problem area needing to be fixed .like singling out the kid with glasses to torment. A bunch of schools in my area were complaining about how they didnt have enough funding and pushed to get more, when they were assessed for the need for updating and more funding for teachers, they found that most of the schools had a surplus of money that they didnt want to spend, and things werent in disrepair and there was not a thing wrong, so extra funding was denied. I'm not saying thats how it is in every area but when a school manages the money that they do have things become a lot better. The on top of that, being a teacher has been known as a low paying job for many years, and the 7 people I know arent going into teaching for money, but to teach, theres an odd concept dont you think?

You say that you know a school with a surplus but doesn't want to spend it. What about the schools that don't have a surplus not to spend? What about the schools that barely have enough money to keep the doors open? I think that these are the schools that deserve more funding. I use inner city school as an example b/c those schools are a good example. The schools are poor, the people are poor, and the kids get shafted. It sounds like you are pretty much saying screw them they are hopeless and i don't believe in that.

ummmm no.... i said that may not be the situation with every school, and your use of inner city schools that are good example when many of those schools have more problem children then anything, and those problem children dont exist due to a lack of school funding, most citys dont allocate proper funding because those schools are in the worst areas and on top of that realistically it wont change their situation, why, because just cause a teacher can teach them, doesnt mean they will listen or care. You obviously think that money for the school is going to make the world better for these kids when their lives out side of school has nothing to do with the school itself, and the schools once again arent the ultimate solution to change a problem thats been there for decades. Willingness to be educated is a choice, and not something that can be forced nor and you make a bunch of people care when they never did before.

this post exists cause mr server was acting weird and didnt send the initial post the normal way...

Cause sending them to jail or letting them shoot each other is a much better idea.

and trying to get them goto school is obviously working to solve that, now isnt it ^_- that situation happens not because of a lack of school, that happens because children are easily manipulated into thinking they need something they dont, and dont try to use that as a school can fix that, because you still have to deal with other kids and other pressures that dont involve an education. You cant tell me youre friends with everyone in your school, and you definetly cant tell me people at your school dont harrass other people just cause of how they look or cause they look like a dork. The inner city schools you feel the need to point out and 100 times worst then the school that you attend, they lack a defined direction that school isnt providing, and that parents either arent trying to provide, or just lack the control on their child

I blame rap music and video games.

quote:

children are easily manipulated

BAM!