TakeYouToTasker

No joke. If you think political tensions are high now, just wait for the fallout after the entire middle of the country is entirely and permanently disenfranchised.

Yes, but only after it was leaked to the media that she hadn't turned on an oven since the late 1980's with her people lobbying the Easy Bake company for photo ops to soften the optics.

The overwhelming majority of those ingredients are found in the home, and there is nothing the state can do to replace it.

So is doesn't correlate, except when it does as relates to arbitrary and undefined salary increases?

You've already argued, just a few posts back, that teacher salary doesn't correlate with student performance.

Having and growing money is a skill, just like playing baseball is skill. Livan had one, and not the other. It's not sad at all, it simply is.

My contention is with government using it's monopoly on force to create a monopoly on education, which is then inescapable, especially for those without means, while well-intentioned !@#$s dictate policy from their ivory towers while generation after generation of lives are squandered. Meanwhile your goal of "more equitable funding" works to deny those whom have already broken away from a legacy poverty the ability to educate their own children in the way they feel will best serve continuing familial success.

I think I see the problem. You've confused conservatism with bumper sticker slogans. A school which receives tax-payer funding and is independent from the public school system.

You've never heard the argument against charter schools, empowering parents to make the key decisions surrounding their children's education, and tax dollars following the student? I find that hard to believe. I find it more likely that you simply dislike the sunlight disinfecting the big government view on education.

The state doesn't have to acknowledge it.

I'm curious about the defense of any position which denies poor families the ability to seek the best possible education for their children, and instead asserts that the state owns them for the good of the state. In addition, I am genuinely curious how you come to disagree with the facts I posted.

The show was funny enough, but I just dislike Larry David so much that it makes the show hard to watch for me.

This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other. Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential. Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential. If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children. Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children.

I don't think you'll find many true conservatives or libertarians who are anti-union. Most rightly view union membership as well within the purview of the freedom to associate. The only issues most would take with unions would be when their associations are no longer voluntary, but rather are an internal pre-requisite for employment or have mandatory funding; and public sector unions which are a perversion of our process. (IE. private sector unions must be careful not to push too far, because the companies their employees work for ultimately report to a bottom line, and pushing too far results in job losses as a company shuts it's doors. This is not the case with public sector unions, as there is no bottom line, and tax payers will be continually soaked in perpetuity even as their municipalities crumble as excessive benefits packages erode tax bases.) As far as the education issue goes, your argument is one that insists that the purpose of public schools is to provide high paying jobs for teachers rather than provide high quality education for at risk students and their families. That may not be your intention, but under the current structure it's all that's possible.

Other than your wife being a public school teacher, with I assume your support being 100% behind the unions in everything they stand for, I really don't understand why you're a Democrat.

I absolutely sympathize, but will offer this: if you do hate her, for as long as you do she'll be directly controlling a portion of your life that you've willfully given her.

Exactly. We're at a point in our history where we are long overdue for a real discussion about checks and balances, and the scope and authority of all branches at all levels of government. As Tom likes to point out, Donald Trump is shaping up to be a real catalyst for some national soul searching on the philosophy of how we govern ourselves. And that's not a bad thing.

Greg, there is so much wrong here that I'm not even sure where to begin correcting you. I'll simply state that Russia never entered a period of unchecked capitalism, ever, and that the US isn't a capitalist economy either.

You aren't likely to get actual "news" that way at all. It's unfortunate, but true.

It's like you've purchased a Vespa, and are now complaining that you can't tow a 40 foot Sea Ray with it. If you want news, stop consuming infotainment.

Because if it still existed, we would have had a sudden and massive influx of dopes. We managed maybe a handful of quality posters, including some much needed perspective from the left, and that's invaluable; but the overwhelming majority of new posters are largely ignorant about the things they opine about. They've made the Dungeon almost as unreadable as they've made the main board.

That's atleast three logical fallacies in just 27 words.

2016 highlights? Well that should last all of 14 seconds.

I, unlike someone here who shall go unnamed, am not deluded into the belief that gun owners should/do have the composure and accuracy of a seasoned sniper with hundreds of confirmed kills.

People always have convenient excuses for lots of things, usually things they believe others think are important, but they themselves don't prioritize very highly. To be honest, I don't want these sorts of people voting. The apathetic, disinterested, ignorant, etc. shouldn't have an equal say in how society organizes itself; and while they should be permitted to vote under the current law, there is no way they should be encouraged to do so. Finally, for those who are new here, or may have missed it in the past, I don't believe that the franchise is a right, but rather a privilege, and should be restricted to those whom either own property or a business, or whom are serving or have served in the military.