Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

[Rishvol]

Yes, it is poor. It would get worse if states were left to do it all themselves.

And not everybody has the option of moving their families from one state to the one with better education. That's not a great way of looking at it IMO.

Actually, states would have a better understanding of their students. The fed looks at the whole country and sees the average. Then the appoint "education specialist" to come up with ways of raising scores in subjects they have no clue about. With the individual state they can see which subjects those students need help in. It's still "education specialist" but at least they could appoint someone with some knowledge of the subsect. Also, less money would be wasted and that money can be more beneficial to the state's education.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I agree with almost everything except what god would do to non-believers. Since its' a Christian notion that abortion goes against god:

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

Wouldn't it be best for god to judge and punish and not government intervention through law. I think its wrong btw. From what I gather it is OK to murder infidels according to the bible.

...no point...

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Actually, states would have a better understanding of their students. The fed looks at the whole country and sees the average. Then the appoint "education specialist" to come up with ways of raising scores in subjects they have no clue about. With the individual state they can see which subjects those students need help in. It's still "education specialist" but at least they could appoint someone with some knowledge of the subsect. Also, less money would be wasted and that money can be more beneficial to the state's education.

Giving states complete power of it would only serve to polarize what is actually being taught (or rather, what can and can't be taught) in schools, though.

I know that most states already control their education standards for the most part and that common core is a useless mess. However, I do think it's important to have some sort of national guidelines for a curriculum as well.

Compared to the rest of the first world, our science education is already a joke. Let a state like Texas have complete autonomy and decide what is and isn't science, and it will just set us further behind.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I also think government regulation causes a lot of our problems and the coal industry is a good example. The government decides coal is bad and so coal production goes into the toilet. Coal miners can't make a living. Local tax revenues plummet. Schools shut down or can't hire the staff to properly teach. The next thing you know you have a whole region in poverty because the government decided coal was bad.

You have no idea how bad it was here when the coal barons were operating unchecked. Everything you said is true to an extent as far as recent history. But the coal industry is like crack to the people of this region. It has always been boom and bust. I love you man, and I don't totally disagree your assessment of the recent disaster visited on this region. It was cruel and stupid to destroy the coal industry with no rollback. That would have alleviated some of the issues. It would have given more people more time to prepare for a new way of life. You should come here, and actually see how people were living in indentured servitude when the Barons operated unchecked. It was sickening, and it is still sickening when industry operates with no other guiding principle than the bottom line.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

I also think government regulation causes a lot of our problems and the coal industry is a good example. The government decides coal is bad and so coal production goes into the toilet. Coal miners can't make a living. Local tax revenues plummet. Schools shut down or can't hire the staff to properly teach. The next thing you know you have a whole region in poverty because the government decided coal was bad.

That's a massive oversimplification of what's happened with coal though. There also market factors to take into account as well as the fact that the more coal you mine, the harder it is to get to the coal there is.

 

[Dust10]

I think we can all agree that we have to save the American worker - whether it's in a rural coal mine or the roughest ghetto in Chicago.

We need to identify a utility we 1) need 2) people can be trained to do and 3) provides them with a better alternative to some of the other things people are currently doing.

 

[Glitch]

Look I know it isn't as simple as 123. There needs to be some regulation to protect workers and provide a safe environment. The government shouldn't decide which energies are good and which are bad. Solar panel plants are failing all over the place because they can't make a profit but the government gives them subsidies because they are clean energy. Meanwhile, coal and oil are demonized even though they are the most cost effective means of energy production. There has to checks and balances but the market should decide if they want coal powered power plants or nuclear or wind or whatever. Then if the coal business goes belly up then it will be the natural order of things and those workers can adjust and learn a new trade. If the government is going to constantly change policies then the coal workers are just stuck in the middle getting the shaft.

 

[Mick]

There is a big difference between old testament and new testament. Old testament God was preparing the way for Jesus and often had the Israelites destroy entire populations of people because their sins were so great. He wanted the Israelites to be free from evil influences because He knows our hearts are easily corruptible.

Jesus came and brought a new age of love. The Israelites were God's people but through Jesus, any who believe in him and follow him are grafted into the tree. So God would not encourage the killing of infidels, IMO, because He would rather they came to know the love of Jesus and follow Him.

I am no biblical scholar so I probably messed that up somewhat.

That is good. I'm more of a bible school love thy neighbor type than the Sunday service we are all sinners type. Not saying you are one or the other. Good talk. I hope I wasn't too condescending. I'm working on that so I can engage with people of opposing views with more understanding and without hate.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

That's a massive oversimplification of what's happened with coal though. There also market factors to take into account as well as the fact that the more coal you mine, the harder it is to get to the coal there is.

Really all they did was make it more cost effective for the PUs to switch their plants from Coal to LNG. Either way, they are both going to run out, smart money would be on figuring out a sustainable way to produce electricity, or we are all screwed, well maybe not us old farts because well probably be dead by then, but it is going to happen.

 

[Rishvol]

Giving states complete power of it would only serve to polarize what is actually being taught (or rather, what can and can't be taught) in schools, though.

I know that most states already control their education standards for the most part and that common core is a useless mess. However, I do think it's important to have some sort of national guidelines for a curriculum as well.

Compared to the rest of the first world, our science education is already a joke. Let a state like Texas have complete autonomy and decide what is and isn't science, and it will just set us further behind.

The best education is given to those who want to be educated. There are actually very few students who want a good education. The rest are there either for an education because they have to or because it gets them away from their home life. And yes there a a big difference between getting an education and wanting an education. That world education thing is a joke because we and like 2 other countries actually give an across the board median of our testing scores. The rest of the world picks their top 10-15% and averages those scores. If the US did that we would be top 5 in every category.
A national guideline is what we have now and it doesn't work because we have people who have never been an educator telling teachers how to educate. This will never be fixed but it could be better at the state level. Why? Because it's more personal than at a national level. Also, is easier for an educator to stand up for their students when the BOE is only 1 state and not 50.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Really all they did was make it more cost effective for the PUs to switch their plants from Coal to LNG. Either way, they are both going to run out, smart money would be on figuring out a sustainable way to produce electricity, or we are all screwed, well maybe not us old farts because well probably be dead by then, but it is going to happen.

I'm really pro nuclear power, but there's a pretty huge stigma around it nowadays. I wish more people would give it an honest look.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Not true if you're voting in a state like Tennessee that always goes red.

In states like Tennessee, a 3rd party vote could be seen as a vote used to try and get a 3rd party to the 5% threshold.

And what does that accomplish?

 

[Mick]

Here is my thought on education: Education of your children should be done at home but with our dual income society children, for the most part, have to go to school while both parents are working. That is the biggest downfall of our society. The workforce is double what it should be causing lower wages and a disconnect with our children and children's education.

 

[BJHSVol]

And what does that accomplish?

If a party gets to 5% then they are automatically placed on the next elections ticket. Right now 3rd parties have to spend most on their campaign budget just to get on the ballot for every state, so it would allow them to campaign more effectively.

It might also force the other parties to include them in national debates, but there might be another threshold they have to meet for that

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

And what does that accomplish?

If a party receives 5% of the vote, they qualify for public funding of their campaigns. So basically it gives an (albeit slight) increase to their ability to be heard and make an impact in elections.

If we're ever going to have a viable third party, we've gotta get one to the 5% threshold first for them to have a chance.

 

[Kristy*]

Not true if you're voting in a state like Tennessee that always goes red.

In states like Tennessee, a 3rd party vote could be seen as a vote used to try and get a 3rd party to the 5% threshold.

It was obvious Trump would take Tennessee, but it should never be taken for granted by either side that Republican will win Tennessee. Bill Clinton won Tennessee in both elections.

We should all vote for the best canditate. It wouldn't have taken much of a candidate to beat Trump. And it didn't take much of a candidate to beat Hillary. It would have been an optimal time for a great 3rd party person to emerge. As it is, America got it right. All my opinion of course.

 

[Glitch]

That is good. I'm more of a bible school love thy neighbor type than the Sunday service we are all sinners type. Not saying you are one or the other. Good talk. I hope I wasn't too condescending. I'm working on that so I can engage with people of opposing views with more understanding and without hate.

No. It has been a pleasant conversation. I am of the we are all sinners camp but Jesus paid for our sins so our love and acceptance of him pays that debt. That doesn't give me a license to sin away but rather encourages me to try and be more loving and engaging of my neighbors and those around me. I fall short often. Especially in here. Lol. However, it does make me think twice about many of my actions and I usually choose to follow what Jesus would do. Hopefully anyway.

 

[Kristy*]

Here is my thought on education: Education of your children should be done at home but with our dual income society children, for the most part, have to go to school while both parents are working. That is the biggest downfall of our society. The workforce is double what it should be causing lower wages and a disconnect with our children and children's education.

For many, home education is the way to go. For others, it is not ideal. And it doesn't always have to do with parental employment. Myself for example, I'm very good with math and science, but I struggle with other subjects like history and geography. Sure, I could learn and teach. But I would feel like I'm depriving my kids of learning. I don't want their knowledge to stop at mine; I want them to exceed me. There are people who are great parents but not good teachers. There are people with minimal education or low IQs who's children could thrive in the right environments. Public school isn't for everyone, but it's a service that should be available until the end of time. We owe "our" children that much.

 

[InVOLuntary]

It was obvious Trump would take Tennessee, but it should never be taken for granted by either side that Republican will win Tennessee. Bill Clinton won Tennessee in both elections.

We should all vote for the best canditate. It wouldn't have taken much of a candidate to beat Trump. And it didn't take much of a candidate to beat Hillary. It would have been an optimal time for a great 3rd party person to emerge. As it is, America got it right. All my opinion of course.

Very wise. I assume you were in DC this weekend?

 

[Kristy*]

No. My argument is that the people in the flyover states matter just as much and those in the urban areas. The large majority of welfare recipients live in urban areas and can be "bought" with the promise of more government assistance and programs. How about this, we go to a popular vote but if you are on welfare you give up your right to vote. Just like Congress shouldn't be allowed to vote them selves a pay raise, you shouldn't be allowed to vote if you stand to benefit without providing equal benefit in exchange.

Originally, you had to be a landowner to vote, with the thought that voters should have stake in the game, something to lose. Otherwise, why wouldn't someone with nothing vote to take from others? Why wouldn't they vote for taxes or laws that punish the working and benefit themselves? Makes sense.

 

[Mick]

For many, home education is the way to go. For others, it is not ideal. And it doesn't always have to do with parental employment. Myself for example, I'm very good with math and science, but I struggle with other subjects like history and geography. Sure, I could learn and teach. But I would feel like I'm depriving my kids of learning. I don't want their knowledge to stop at mine; I want them to exceed me. There are people who are great parents but not good teachers. There are people with minimal education or low IQs who's children could thrive in the right environments. Public school isn't for everyone, but it's a service that should be available until the end of time. We owe "our" children that much.

Good points. Not saying to get rid of public schools. With the shape of our education system I'm sure you would do better. The individualized attention you could give your children would be best IMO. Every child learns differently but there is no one better to determine how they learn than a parent. Geography in school is maps and a book but with computers learning about South America may lead to some popcorn watching a documentary about Machu Picchu.

EDIT: Personally I would like a government education.net to help everyone, not just children, learn new things.

 

[Kristy*]

Very wise. I assume you were in DC this weekend?

NO! I had a lot of family and friends that went. I thought it was a little (a lot) overkill myself. A lot of *****ing, when I've never felt my rights were suppressed. I'm beyond tired of everybody being overly senstive and everything being such a big deal. But that's just me.

 

[Kristy*]

Good points. Not saying to get rid of public schools. With the shape of our education system I'm sure you would do better. The individualized attention you could give your children would be best IMO. Every child learns differently but there is no one better to determine how they learn than a parent. Geography in school is maps and a book but with computers learning about South America may lead to some popcorn watching a documentary about Machu Picchu.

Like Glicht said, I will supplement their educations.

Also, the social aspect of schools can be very beneficial too. I'm pro school, but again, to each their own.

 

[WallyBalls]

Not true if you're voting in a state like Tennessee that always goes red.

In states like Tennessee, a 3rd party vote could be seen as a vote used to try and get a 3rd party to the 5% threshold.

Thank you. Exactly my point and a part of the reason I've been going 3rd party a couple of elections now (there are more, but that's part of it).

 

[WallyBalls]

Really enjoyable discussion in this thread today.

Issues INFINITELY more important than what we're usually talking about but generally pretty civil and intelligent.

Good to see.