Conservative Punks!!!!

[emokid0079]

Hey
For a while now I have been a conservative, but for even longer I have been into the Punk scene. I started liking Punk music in about seventh grade when I got into bands like the Ramones, the Velvet Underground, Green Day and Blink 182. Now I have ventured off into other forms of Punk music like Hardcore and Emo. I am a huge Thrice, Thursday, TBS fan etc.
But last year, I was in Cincinatti at Warped Tour. I attended a Punk Voter dot com speach of sorts. When I was there i had openly mentioned that I was Conservative. From then on I was ridiculed and called names, like poseur, and constantly made fun of because I was a conservative punk, and because I didnt follow the majority of Punk liberals.
Now I am only 16 but, as I was growing up I had always understood that Punk music was about not fitting the mold, being yourself, forming your own opinions instead of letting people (and other bands) make them for you. I made the decision to not be like everybody else and be a Conservative, and not just because of that reason but because I believed in it also.
I am giving my testimony right now to anyone who feels the way I do. Conservative Punks are hated minorities in an already minority group of people. To anyone who is a conservative punk... YOUR NOT ALONE

www.conservativepunk.com

[open mind]

i don't hate conservatives i just feel that most of the time they don't live in and deny the reality of the modern world,but you can be "punk" with conservative views it's not like a law you have to think a certain way to be "punk" and to think otherwise is small minded.
i don't consider myself "punk" i listen to punk music..................

[yeat182]

it is my experience that liberals tend to be idealists while conservatives tend to be realists.

[open mind]

real cold hearted folks that believe that helping people is bad and useless unless they are gonna get something in return,and are alot more prone to liking the idea of war.

[dretti]

i'm very very conservative
so you also are not alone

and

open mind go hug a tree

[Karoline]

it is my experience that liberals tend to be idealists while conservatives tend to be realists.

I completely agree. Liberal usually create the questions, but they never have the answers.

[emokid0079]

Hey guys thanks for the replies. I am in no way attacking Punks or Liberals, I am just informing you of the brainwashing that is going on. On webistes such as www.punkvoter.com they claim to just inform you about voting in general and in getting youth into politics. Well the site should be called Liberal brainwashing voter dot com because they only tell you one side of the story. Anyways, later guys/gals.

[BrandNew20]

I completely agree. Liberal usually create the questions, but they never have the answers.

uh huh....and you base that on what?

[Karoline]

well, let me first say that i never meant to start an argument and i don't want to start one now, but ok, here's one example:

liberals say that we shouldn't be in iraq. while they have a right to their opinions and in the beginning they had geniune arguments against going to iraq, once we got there we can't just pull out. There was a 100,000 man march in london today protesting the UK and US being in Iraq. Now while they're right in being skeptical of our reasons to be there they don't have any solutions to the problem. If we just leave Iraq right now warlords and others will just take hold of the country and it will be worse off than it was with saddam. Futhermore, whether you agree with the war or not we made a commitment to people of Iraq and promised them a better life. We can't just abandon them now. I just find liberals to rely more on their feelings about something and fail to see things logically sometimes.

now please don't yell at me....=(

[BrandNew20]

The liberals do have a solution to that problem...by rotating UN troops in and removing some American troops, fullfilling the promise of giving Iraquis a better life as well as getting rid of the american special interests which I'm sure those people in London were protesting against.

[emokid0079]

Dude, if we put UN troops in Iraq, they would be doing the same thing we are doing right now. I mean think abuot it. Who are the the biggest leaders in the UN besides America??? English, and Polish groups, both of which are US Allies. Second of all, even if they didnt have the same agenda as America (which by the way is to restore the Iraqi cicilization) they would just fail. If the UN tried to say look lets do this peacfully, they would be taken advantage of and be attacked just as bad.

Now here is you question.
Why do you think America is in Iraq???

[Karoline]

while in theory this is a good solution, lets be honest, the UN is successful, but only as a debating forum, they don't get things done. The last time that the UN took over was in Haiti and look what happened there. Also, the US has had to bail out the UN peace keepers themselves before, i.e. Somalia and because of Clinton's lack of confidence we quickly pulled out of Somalia and its looked on as the black mark of his administration, politically more than the monica scandal

i'd like to mention by the way that i'm conservative and not republican, i'm actually libertarian

[emokid0079]

Exactly, thats what i was saying when i said people would take advantage of people. We are still paying for Clintons mistakes from Somolia.

[BrandNew20]

Dude, if we put UN troops in Iraq, they would be doing the same thing we are doing right now. I mean think abuot it. Who are the the biggest leaders in the UN besides America??? English, and Polish groups, both of which are US Allies. Second of all, even if they didnt have the same agenda as America (which by the way is to restore the Iraqi cicilization) they would just fail. If the UN tried to say look lets do this peacfully, they would be taken advantage of and be attacked just as bad.

Now here is you question.
Why do you think America is in Iraq???

There are tons of reasons why America is in Iraq, some good and some not so good...sure we are trying to give Iraquis a better life, but its really not going too well and our presence there is creating a TON of violence. I'm sure eventually we will give them a better life, but at a tremendous cost. The reason I want UN troops there is because this shouldn't be America's responsibility alone, which it essentially is nowadays. We shouldn't have gone to war without their backing in the first place.

[Karoline]

now heres what makes me angry. The idea of us policing the world and American imperialism is soooo anoying. Lets examine every other super power the world has ever known. Rome, England, France, Spain, when all of these places ruled the world they were much more imperialistic and caused much more death and destruction than the US is. While the US's motives for going to Iraq might have been economically based is that really that bad? Were you complaining when gas prices dropped almost a dollar? Plus, comparitively, in the entire war the US lost 1/100th of the people who died on D-day alone. It's just on tv now and you're seeing it everyday. And don't say that the world doesn't want us to police them, because they do. They want us to give our money for aid for Africa, support Enviromental laws that would cost american companies billions, while at the same time they want us to give all of our jobs to china by not giving tax breaks to american companies to stay in america . Not to mention the entire world's economy is based on the American economy. It is natural whether the problem is economic, enviromental, political to look to the most powerful country in the world as the problem, but at the same time they look to that country(the US) for the solutions. America's past is full of isolationist foriegn policies. We were forced into superpower position at the end of WWII because all of the countries in europe were basically blown to bits. We are a reluctant superpower, and thats what causes such a conflict morally in our country.

[BrandNew20]

While the US's motives for going to Iraq might have been economically based is that really that bad? Were you complaining when gas prices dropped almost a dollar? .

No I'm complaining because gas prices actually continue to rise rapidly...

[Karoline]

i thought you might bring that up, thats why i say, move to ohio, we're holding steady under a buck fifty

[BrandNew20]

Hey guys thanks for the replies. I am in no way attacking Punks or Liberals, I am just informing you of the brainwashing that is going on. On webistes such as www.punkvoter.com they claim to just inform you about voting in general and in getting youth into politics. Well the site should be called Liberal brainwashing voter dot com because they only tell you one side of the story. Anyways, later guys/gals.

I just checked out conservative punk and thought that I'd give you some feedback...it seems to me that your doing the exact same thing that you are complaining about Punkvoter for doing-giving one side of the story. Throughout the articles one the site there are references to Billie Joe Armstrong being a cry baby because he's essentially giving an opinion that differs from yours, while a quote from fat mike is taking vastly out of context. This is taken from an article on the site:

Mike says, "I may not be that smart, but I am doing something." "Most Americans aren't very smart when compared to citizens from other developed nations." He goes on to say, "So What? It's not about who's the smartest, it's about doing the right thing." So is it then true if you believe the right thing to do is run into a sidewalk cafe and detonate the bombs strapped to your chest that it is right because, well, that's what you believe is right?

That part of the article is just insane, he wasn't saying that people should just do whatever makes them feel good, he was saying that he felt the need to act because of wrongs(in his opinion) he saw being committed...

Another problem I have with the site is that it makes a ton of blanket statements referring to "The Punk Rock Left" when in actuallity, for the most part, you seem to be addressing Punk Voter.

[Karoline]

I myself must confess that I have never been to that site you're referring to and have no complaints with the punk-voting community. I'm just happy they vote at all; i don't care who they vote for. I'd rather think of myself as a politically minded person. I don't think I'd go as far to classify myself by a genre of music I listen to.

anyhow i'm tired and going to bed, nice talking to ya BrandNew

[yeat182]

uh huh....and you base that on what?

experience.

[BrandNew20]

experience.

haha, fair enough then I guess...

[venus/bacchus]

i thought you might bring that up, thats why i say, move to ohio, we're holding steady under a buck fifty
I completely agree with you on all your points...but we're holding steady at $1.79 in Toledo

[yeat182]

it was 1.79 for me in mass. but it was around 1.20 earlier in 2003. 1.79 is still alot, especially for those fools with SUV's. i think this is some of the best evidence, however, that the war in Iraq was not about oil, because had our goal been to "steal" the iraqi's oil, we would be paying dirt cheap prices for gas, not seeing them rise.

[hXc_pwnage]

I think we should worry about oil less and put fundings into finding other means of fuel.

[emokid0079]

With Conservative punk dot com, they do tell both sides of the story. Conservative punk dot com has a columist that hates President Bush's Foreign policies just as much as any other Liberal.

And another thing about Americans being in Iraq for Oil, or for being Imperialist. THAT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER B.S. If we were in Iraq to take it over, or at least takeover the oil. Dont you think we would have done that when we won Desert Storm??? I mean come on think about it.

[yeat182]

I think we should worry about oil less and put fundings into finding other means of fuel.

i totally agree, however, in the short term, oil is a nescessary comoditie and expensive.

[Karoline]

I completely agree with you on all your points...but we're holding steady at $1.79 in Toledo

sucks to live in toledo, i suggest a move to eastern cleveland

[hXc_pwnage]

i totally agree, however, in the short term, oil is a nescessary comoditie and expensive.
Yes, it will be needed for a while. I just think that Bush should put more money back into the research. Think how much it could save the enviroment AND money.

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm pretty sure he's taken money out. Either that or he just doesn't fund it like he said he did.

[hXc_pwnage]

They cut the spending for the research and development for alternative energy sources by 50%.

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm not saying it is or isnt but is more funding the problem? Does just throwing money at the problem produce results in this situation.
Well, the more money there is, the more research they can do.

[hXc_pwnage]

So you don't mind that the enviroment is being destroyed? You don't mind all those chemicals being put in the air? You don't mind wasting all that money on oil when we could use other sources?

[open mind]

Do you not think UN troops will be attacked just like American troops? If you'll remember the UN in Iraq was bombed a little less than a year ago. Terrorists dont care what group is in there.
if it was the u.n. in there it would be a much more legitamite opertation in the eyes of the world, and the bitching about imperialism and what-not would end so we wouldn't have to be seen as the bad guy forcing shit on the populace so much.

[open mind]

I think you would have just has many attacks if the UN were in there as if America was in there.
i didn't say the violence would stop? i will say if the u.n. was in charge, being in iraq would lend alot of credibility to the situation in iraq and take alot of the heat and responsibility off of us.

[open mind]

the u.n. being involved would make it a true global coalition that would be in charge,most everyone besides us is deciding what they'll do based on what the u.n. says anyways.
the u.n. has way more credibility in the eyes of iraqis and the world compared to us.

[open mind]

we've packed up and left when our embassies were bombed in the past to.........

[open mind]

was the u.n. in charge of iraq when they left?

[yeat182]

if it was the u.n. in there it would be a much more legitamite opertation in the eyes of the world, and the bitching about imperialism and what-not would end so we wouldn't have to be seen as the bad guy forcing shit on the populace so much.


if the UN was there, the terrorists would win.

[open mind]

if the UN was there, the terrorists would win.
like you would say, prove it.

[Justin_stacy]

like you would say, prove it.

http://www.4forums.com/political/showthread.php?t=396&highlight=united+nations

[yeat182]

that pretty much sums up their failures, is it proof enough?

[hXc_pwnage]

Did I ever say that? I just think laws and regulations might help more than putting 8 or 10 billion dollars more into reasearch.

Was all that stuff not happening before Bush cut spending in it?
Clinton had around 20 billion in there. Bush cut it into 10.

[yeat182]

Clinton had around 20 billion in there. Bush cut it into 10.

i think his point was, wasn't there pollution from cars prior to bush cutting the research money?

but i wouldn't mind seeing more money invested in it, along with certain laws and regulations. i don't think the effect it has on the environment is the biggest problem, certainly pollution is an issue, but cars have come a long way in the last 20 years, and will only improve in the future, but i think the dependence on oil is the biggest problem, from an economic and pollitical stand point. when oil becomes scarce, which is inevitable, it will be a problem for everyone, especially in modern nations like the US. our country would crumble if there was no oil, so in that regard, it is in our own best interests to find an alternative. i would think doing it sooner rather than later would be the most obvious course of action, even if from a purely 'greedy' standpoint, we could either sell that new technology to other countries, or keep it for ourselves and watch the rest of the world fight over the scraps of oil that remain. (i'm not saying that is what i would like to see, so don't get all bent out of shape, but if that sort of reasoning is what it would take to get it done, then sure, say you're doing it to make profit.)

[hXc_pwnage]

i think his point was, wasn't there pollution from cars prior to bush cutting the research money?

but i wouldn't mind seeing more money invested in it, along with certain laws and regulations. i don't think the effect it has on the environment is the biggest problem, certainly pollution is an issue, but cars have come a long way in the last 20 years, and will only improve in the future, but i think the dependence on oil is the biggest problem, from an economic and pollitical stand point. when oil becomes scarce, which is inevitable, it will be a problem for everyone, especially in modern nations like the US. our country would crumble if there was no oil, so in that regard, it is in our own best interests to find an alternative. i would think doing it sooner rather than later would be the most obvious course of action, even if from a purely 'greedy' standpoint, we could either sell that new technology to other countries, or keep it for ourselves and watch the rest of the world fight over the scraps of oil that remain. (i'm not saying that is what i would like to see, so don't get all bent out of shape, but if that sort of reasoning is what it would take to get it done, then sure, say you're doing it to make profit.)
Yes, there was. But, just because there WAS doesn't mean there should be now.

Yes, that reason is a very big one too. That's why I think we should be looking into it now, and not just cut fundings and keep on cutting. It'll just screw us over later on.

Hahahahahahaha, that last part made me laugh.

[open mind]

that pretty much sums up their failures, is it proof enough?
no because none of those situations are a part of the war on terror and alot of those articles are slanted and disputable.

[open mind]

they were there for humanitarian purposes.

It really hurts the UN argument when you see them cut and run.
the u.s. has never cut and run when shit got bad huh?

[yeat182]

the u.s. has never cut and run when shit got bad huh?


what is your point? the US isn't a faliure. the UN is.

[open mind]

that's a matter of opinion.

[open mind]

if i remember correctly we chilled out in bosnia pretty quickly.

[yeat182]

if i remember correctly we chilled out in bosnia pretty quickly.


if i remember correctly, the UN refused to go in an do anything, and the US went in a removed Milosevic, with help from NATO.

[open mind]

were you opposed to us leaving?
no i was just pointing out that it's not like we haven't cut and run before so it's kinda hypocritical to say the u.n. is fucked because they did the same thing.
i may be thinking of the wrong place though,i'm thinking of that one place where we pulled out after a few soldiers were dragged by a truck and beaten and shit.

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm not arguing there shouldnt be more money invested or there should be less. Is 20 billion going to solve what 10 billion cant. On top of laws and regulations appropriate spending by the people who get this money would help significantly too.
Can you work better with a 100 dollar budget or a 200 dollar budget?

[yeat182]

Can you work better with a 100 dollar budget or a 200 dollar budget?


i would agree, but on the other hand, in sports, the team with the highest salary, isn't always the best team. so sometimes throwing too much money at something, is just wasting money.

[hXc_pwnage]

Haha...one word: YANKEES.

GGnore. :p

[hXc_pwnage]

If the money is spent appropriately you could probably do just as well if not the same.

Throwing money at a problem is not a solution.
Throwing money and then using it constructively isn't the same. With more money, you can test more, get more supplies, check out more things, use better technology, etc.

[open mind]

if any government organization wastes money it's the pentagon,remember the bradley?

[hXc_pwnage]

I agree in many instances you can, and maybe in this one. I'm just saying not to neccessarily leap on the Bush adminsitrations back for cutting spending on this. We dont know how far they've advanced already in studying alternative sources, and how well they've managed the money.
I'd be willing to bet that they have gotten barely much done on it. Bush is more into homeland security than anything. Nothing is wrong with homeland security, but there are other things important.

[open mind]

In this situation they are. You're arguing for there presence in Iraq, but they have shown in this situation they have shown they are not up for it.
everyone besides us is already taking the u.n.'s lead in most everything like decideing when elections are feasible and shit so i think they've shown they can handle the situation,before they were dealing with a humanitarian cause this would be different.

[yeat182]

I'd be willing to bet that they have gotten barely much done on it. Bush is more into homeland security than anything. Nothing is wrong with homeland security, but there are other things important.


i would imagine it will be private industry that comes up with an alternative, not a government funded program.

[open mind]

i believe if they were in the lead with us supporting them strongly it would work out better and faster.

[open mind]

we are a member of the u.n. so we could be in iraq and help as much as we want just the u.n. would be in charge and people around the world including many americans would be alot happier about iraq.
so i guess all of the above.

[open mind]

and the iraqis which is what this whole thing is supposed to be about right?

[yeat182]

the Iraqi's aren't the problem, the terrorists are the problem. and the UN would be incapable of doing anything beyond what the US is doing now, in fact, they'd probably do worse.

[open mind]

the iraqi's would rather have the u.n. in control if we're in this for the iraqi's why not do what they want?
it's not like we would have to stop trying to get the terrorists just because the u.n. is in charge,in fact we'd have more people fighting terrorism if they were in the lead.

[yeat182]

the iraqi's would rather have the u.n. in control if we're in this for the iraqi's why not do what they want?
it's not like we would have to stop trying to get the terrorists just because the u.n. is in charge,in fact we'd have more people fighting terrorism if they were in the lead.


the iraqi's prefer the same UN that did nothing to help them under Saddam Hussein? that nearly cost them their freedom? that's gratitude for ya...

[Justin_stacy]

i would agree, but on the other hand, in sports, the team with the highest salary, isn't always the best team. so sometimes throwing too much money at something, is just wasting money.

wow...you just basically sumed up the american education system! good job...

[open mind]

the iraqi's prefer the same UN that did nothing to help them under Saddam Hussein? that nearly cost them their freedom? that's gratitude for ya...
what does that have to do with anything today?and since when were we in it for the gratitude?

[open mind]

wow...you just basically sumed up the american education system! good job...
the educational system is under-funded in my opinion.

[Justin_stacy]

Haha...one word: YANKEES.

GGnore. :p

New York Yankees payroll $133,429,757

Florida Marlins payroll $40,822,536

[Justin_stacy]

the educational system is under-funded in my opinion.
and in my opinion it is over funded and controled by the wrong people...

[open mind]

it's under funded but the not being able to fire teachers that suck is bad,still the no child left behind act causes all these broad changes without the funding to make those changes happen.

[Justin_stacy]

throwing money at schools has been a proven failure....what really needs to be done is localizing school control to the states, allowing parents more choices, ending the power of Teacher Tenures, limiting the scope and power of the (destructive) teacher's unions, and force schools to be accountable for the money they are given......

[hXc_pwnage]

New York Yankees payroll $133,429,757

Florida Marlins payroll $40,822,536
World Series:

Won by Yankees-3945687846735

Won by Marlines- like 1?

Think of all the money the Yankees make compared to the Marlins...

[open mind]

your bound to get shitty results when you underfund schools,funding increases yearly but it hasn't kept up with inflation and there are more students every year so what do you expect?
states already do fund schools alot,the tenure program does suck,and parents already do have choices on the schools their kids go to.

[yeat182]

World Series:

Won by Yankees-3945687846735

Won by Marlines- like 1?

Think of all the money the Yankees make compared to the Marlins...


think of how much they spend compared to the marlins, i'm not saying it evens out, but in the end, if you can spend less for the same result, then why not spend less?

[open mind]

2 other points you can't force kids to learn if they don't want to,and parents need to be more involved to get the most out of the system,most parents act like their kids go to school and they are supposed to be geniuses and the parents act like it's all on the teachers when you really need a group of people helping a kid.

[hXc_pwnage]

throwing money at schools has been a proven failure....what really needs to be done is localizing school control to the states, allowing parents more choices, ending the power of Teacher Tenures, limiting the scope and power of the (destructive) teacher's unions, and force schools to be accountable for the money they are given......
I think schools shouldn't be privatized. That annoys me to hell. I also agree with mainly what you said (that I know about..) I think we need to take more control on our education. We can't let it slip. I think the tests they are given to see if a school is a "failure" or not is ridiculous(sp). I think schools shouldn't waste money on useless things. I think the teachers need to care more about the students than their paychecks. I don't know about your schools, but I know that at my school, over half of the teachers could give a shit if you pass or fail.

[hXc_pwnage]

think of how much they spend compared to the marlins, i'm not saying it evens out, but in the end, if you can spend less for the same result, then why not spend less?
But really, baseball and oil have no correlation.

Baseball is all human, no machines, etc. It doesn't involve anything deadly.

Oil can lead to many damaging things. Also, it isn't all human run.

There's more, I'm just tired and can't think. Bleh.

(If that makes no sense, just don't even bother with it. :))

[Justin_stacy]

World Series:

Won by Yankees-3945687846735

Won by Marlines- like 1?

Think of all the money the Yankees make compared to the Marlins...

Marilines have a 100% (2/2) win record

Yankees have a 66% (26/39) win record


..and making money doesn't make them the better team, just the more profitable one....

[hXc_pwnage]

Marilines have a 100% (2/2) win record

Yankees have a 66% (26/39) win record


..and making money doesn't make them the better team, just the more profitable one....
But...the Yankees have had more chance for losing and have won more.

Haha, this is turning into a sports thread...sad.

[open mind]

i'm wondering what sports and alternative energy sources have to do with eachother,or any other government funded programs for that matter.........

[hXc_pwnage]

i'm wondering what sports and alternative energy sources have to do with eachother,or any other government funded programs for that matter.........
That same thing was running through my mind...

[Justin_stacy]

But...the Yankees have had more chance for losing and have won more.

Haha, this is turning into a sports thread...sad.


there also 90years older (actually more if you go back into the 1800's)...you know the funny thing is i hate baseball.....so i shall drop this arguement, but ad that yeats analogy proved that money can't buy every thing....

[yeat182]

i'm wondering what sports and alternative energy sources have to do with eachother,or any other government funded programs for that matter.........

it was an analogy showing that you can't just throw money at something and hope to get results. money spent wisely will get more results than more money spent foolishly.

[Justin_stacy]

i'm wondering what sports and alternative energy sources have to do with eachother,or any other government funded programs for that matter.........
that more money doesn't equal better results........

[open mind]

at least have an anology that has something that relates to the topic.........

[hXc_pwnage]

there also 90years older (actually more if you go back into the 1800's)...you know the funny thing is i hate baseball.....so i shall drop this arguement, but ad that yeats analogy proved that money can't buy every thing....
Yes, money can't buy everything...but it can help.

I'd rather have more room to work than have a very tight spot.

Like: you want a small cubicle or a big office?

[Justin_stacy]

I think schools shouldn't be privatized. That annoys me to hell. .

why not (for arguements sake).....washington has failed at every social issue it has gotten its hands on, why isn't it time to try something new?

[open mind]

why not (for arguements sake).....washington has failed at every social issue it has gotten its hands on, why isn't it time to try something new?
when federal money goes to private companys the government always gets over charged,so no.

[Justin_stacy]

the government always gets over charged,so no.

the same things happening right now, so thats not really a valid arguement.....unless of course you condeming the current system too...

[Justin_stacy]

at least have an anology that has something that relates to the topic.........
it was a perfect analogy...it used a current event to drive home the point being made....

[hXc_pwnage]

why not (for arguements sake).....washington has failed at every social issue it has gotten its hands on, why isn't it time to try something new?
Because privatizing schools just cuts out people that can go to that school. That means that the public schools become more crowded. That leads to less attention the students, which in turn leads to harder learning.

Yes, I know that is probably a big leap, but oh well.

[open mind]

i think the current system is under funded so i'm not condemning it,although the tenure program is bad teachers do need to be held accountable for the job they do and alot of them suck,what the system really needs is smaller classes,which would mean either bigger buildings or more schools and more quality teachers,not privatization.
the way to get more and better teachers would be to increase salaries and have set guidelines,not instituting a bunch of mandatory changes that don't get the funding needed to implement them and switching to a completly new system,that's really just gonna move the problem.

[Justin_stacy]

Because privatizing schools just cuts out people that can go to that school. That means that the public schools become more crowded. That leads to less attention the students, which in turn leads to harder learning..

That if school A becomes a private school, then school B will be forced to take on added students, because school A will not be able to handle as many as it did before.....is that what your saying? One question why would school A be unable to handle the same amount of students?

[hXc_pwnage]

i think the current system is under funded so i'm not condemning it,although the tenure program is bad teachers do need to be held accountable for the job they do and alot of them suck,what the system really needs is smaller classes,which would mean either bigger buildings or more schools and more quality teachers,not privatization.
the way to get more and better teachers would be to increase salaries and have set guidelines,not instituting a bunch of mandatory changes that don't get the funding needed to implement them and switching to a completly new system,that's really just gonna move the problem.
Yeah...nowadays, it is so easy to become a teacher. The requirments should be harder and yes, like Mike said, the salaries should be more and the classes should be smaller. We also need to find new ways of testing the kids. The way we do now doesn't really help. For one thing, in GA, we have to take the Gateway. That thing is utter bullshit.

But, if I had my way, school would be more about things we are going to use in real life. Who in hell is going to use surface area of some 4067456 sided figure? An architect...wow. I think that if by high school, kids have a profession they want, they should be able to focuse on those classes mainly. This one person, forgot the name, devised a new method of teaching. Instead of forcing the kids to move and move, if they are doing something productive, they can finish it. I would take that, and combine some other ways.

[hXc_pwnage]

That if school A becomes a private school, then school B will be forced to take on added students, because school A will not be able to handle as many as it did before.....is that what your saying? One question why would school A be unable to handle the same amount of students?
Yes...

Because of the money you have to pay to go to private schools. Not all families can afford that. Also, they have set limits on amounts of students they will take. I know one school close to me only takes like 13 kids per class, and they have no more than like 10 or so classes per grade. It's crazy...

[Justin_stacy]

the way to get more and better teachers would be to increase salaries and have set guidelines,not instituting a bunch of mandatory changes .
I agree with you, on this....the one problem is, is that you have to make the specific guidelines/rule/responsibilities instituted by a group other then the school(s) or school board members or the teachers unions......you can't expect those that are failing or causing the failing to set their own standards...they wouldn't be stringent enough.….

[hXc_pwnage]

It's funded pretty adequitley it's just mismanaged in every direction.
^^^

It could use a little more funds, but what couldn't?

[Justin_stacy]

Yes...

Because of the money you have to pay to go to private schools. Not all families can afford that. Also, they have set limits on amounts of students they will take. I know one school close to me only takes like 13 kids per class, and they have no more than like 10 or so classes per grade. It's crazy...


and you said you didn't know much on the issue...liar! Although i will add that if all schools were private then the school taxes would be ended (hopefully!) freeing up money...

but, Privatizing in the form I was referring to was a voucher like system, similar to those being used in Wisconsin, D.C., Missouri and Part of NY (and many other areas).....Where parents are given back some of their money to put their kids in schools of their choice, due to the continuous failure of the local public school or overcrowding….

[Justin_stacy]

^^^

It could use a little more funds, but what couldn't?


anything could use more funds, hell theres not a group in washington who wouldn't want more money......but the point is do they really need it? or are there short comings self imposed?

[hXc_pwnage]

and you said you didn't know much on the issue...liar! Although i will add that if all schools were private then the school taxes would be ended (hopefully!) freeing up money...

but, Privatizing in the form I was referring to was a voucher like system, similar to those being used in Wisconsin, D.C., Missouri and Part of NY (and many other areas).....Where parents are given back some of their money to put their kids in schools of their choice, due to the continuous failure of the local public school or overcrowding….
Yeah, like everything, there are two sides. Yes, there would be good things about all private schools, but I find that all public would make me happier. And that's all that matters in the world. :p

I've never heard of that... It may work. I just feel that if we uped the requirments for teachers, more pay, better handling of the schools, better use of the money by the schools, better teachers/staff, and other stuff...but I have to go now.

[hXc_pwnage]

anything could use more funds, hell theres not a group in washington who wouldn't want more money......but the point is do they really need it? or are there short comings self imposed?
If the schools used the fundings better, things would be different. I also think that the programs used the help schools and students (i.e. No Child Left Behind) SHOULD be funded better and handled better.

[Justin_stacy]

If the schools used the fundings better, things would be different. I also think that the programs used the help schools and students (i.e. No Child Left Behind) SHOULD be funded better and handled better.

i think thats the whole point, school need to use their funding better, and seeing as how they won't do it on there own.....someone either has to force them too or offer those being harmed, the children/parents, more options....

[Justin_stacy]

Yeah, like everything, there are two sides. Yes, there would be good things about all private schools, but I find that all public would make me happier. And that's all that matters in the world. :p
.

ignoring the second half, because your not god!

Your right there are allways two sides to every issue, and neither answer will ever be perfect.....so what we have to do is figure out which side/options have the least amount of failings when compared to the great good they will achieve and act on them...ignoring the problem will help no one...

[yeat182]

when federal money goes to private companys the government always gets over charged,so no.

actually, no. the private companies do better work, for lower prices. see John Stossel, from 20/20, he did a huge story on this a while back.

[yeat182]

Ok I go to Texas A&M and a pay about $4,500 a year for tuition, $650 for books, and if i wanted a meal plan i'd pay about $1,000 a year. That adds up to a little over $6,000 a year.

With this money I get a top notch education, transportaion to class, food, high quality teachers, and high quality electronics.

Now look at the national average in 2001-2002 per studnet.

http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/summer/3-4.asp#Table-7

The U.S average of money spent per student is $7,524

Now is it ubsurd to think with this kind of money going to each student they should not be equipt with the same things I have? NO. Mismanagement is to blame. Not lack of money.

excellent point.

[open mind]

actually, no. the private companies do better work, for lower prices. see John Stossel, from 20/20, he did a huge story on this a while back.
10 bucks for an aspirin is outrageous,so is over-charging the government for oil when your in iraq,there's a long list of overcharging,shit everyone knows whenever you have a government contract everyone gets paid more than if it's for a private company like davis bacon wages and what-not.

[open mind]

Ok I go to Texas A&M and a pay about $4,500 a year for tuition, $650 for books, and if i wanted a meal plan i'd pay about $1,000 a year. That adds up to a little over $6,000 a year.

With this money I get a top notch education, transportaion to class, food, high quality teachers, and high quality electronics.

Now look at the national average in 2001-2002 per studnet.

http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/summer/3-4.asp#Table-7

The U.S average of money spent per student is $7,524

Now is it ubsurd to think with this kind of money going to each student they should not be equipt with the same things I have? NO. Mismanagement is to blame. Not lack of money.
your university is pretty much built while public schools are constanly having to build new schools to keep up with the amount of new students,and things are alot easier to run when your dealing with students who want to learn and you don't have to worry about discpline as much,then there are the alumni who contribute greatly to universites and the government also gives money to alot of universities and i don't know of any public schools that make a big chunk of money from their sports programs.

[open mind]

another thing is that colleges don't have free lunch programs,need to have supervision for recess and i'm pretty sure they don't need to employ crossing guards or school nurses,and since public schools cover everything from reading to chemistry there are more matierals needed.

[hXc_pwnage]

Ok I go to Texas A&M and a pay about $4,500 a year for tuition, $650 for books, and if i wanted a meal plan i'd pay about $1,000 a year. That adds up to a little over $6,000 a year.

With this money I get a top notch education, transportaion to class, food, high quality teachers, and high quality electronics.

Now look at the national average in 2001-2002 per studnet.

http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/summer/3-4.asp#Table-7

The U.S average of money spent per student is $7,524

Now is it ubsurd to think with this kind of money going to each student they should not be equipt with the same things I have? NO. Mismanagement is to blame. Not lack of money.
I never said it was underfunded. I know that they don't handle money well. I think there needs to be an organization (I bet there already is, but oh well...) that make all those decisions. Not just like the school board and what not, but something more. There need to be hard rules on how the school spends it's money. I could really care less on how nice my lunch room looks.

[UndefinedBoy]

Ok I go to Texas A&M and a pay about $4,500 a year for tuition, $650 for books, and if i wanted a meal plan i'd pay about $1,000 a year. That adds up to a little over $6,000 a year.

With this money I get a top notch education, transportaion to class, food, high quality teachers, and high quality electronics.

Now look at the national average in 2001-2002 per studnet.

http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/summer/3-4.asp#Table-7

The U.S average of money spent per student is $7,524

Now is it ubsurd to think with this kind of money going to each student they should not be equipt with the same things I have? NO. Mismanagement is to blame. Not lack of money.

Also keep in mind that that is only an average. Some schools in better areas are far better off than poorer neighborhoods. My hometown, Evanston (just outside of Chicago) is one example. My high school pays almost $15,000 per student. That's a shiteload of money, so keep in mind that since those numbers are averaged, another school in my state is getting fucked over.

But like open mind said, it's not as simple to compare high schools to universities, which have endowments and other sources of money.

[open mind]

also the average public school student spends more time attending classes then the average college student,i'm taking 13 credits worth of classes now but i only spend like 12 hours a week in class,compared to like 9 to 3 every weekday.

[yeat182]

yeah, plus a state school might have 30,000+ students. i didn't go to a big high school, but i'm willing to bet there aren't any with even half that many students.

[Michael D.]

Maybe I'm a little too late for this: You're parents are conservative, right emokid0079?
And you are like: "man, I don't want to be like everybody else...I'm so punk...yeah!"

[vikingstrike182]

You are far from being alone.

[open mind]

why does that matter? You have classes going from 8 in the morning till 9 at night.
it's not one teacher that is teaching for that long is it?

[open mind]

I'm sure alumni give tons and they make alot from sports, but i'm positive that the cost of maintaing a big university far outways that of public schools.
your telling me it takes more money to run one college,than it does to build new schools,maintain and expand new ones,get the matierals to cover everything from the abc's to college level courses,supervise and discipline a bunch of kids,provide free lunches,deal with english as a second language and special education classes,and a whole list of other things colleges don't have to deal with for entire states?

[Sinister Rouge]

My parents are extremely conservative...but I am a socialist. But I am older than a lot of people on this forum so I have formulated my opinion and didn't take it from my parents. I have been leftist all my life, I got into politics when I was 9 when Bush Sr. let Saddam brutally put down a Shia revolt in Iraq while the US watched.

And schools should be more funded and evenly funded.

[SwingingMics]

Move to Spain than.

[Sinister Rouge]

Move to Spain than.

Typical conservative telling a "liberal" to move....I hear it all the time.

Hey, the Spanish people are smarter than Americans, they punish governments who lie to them like Aznar's party.

[SwingingMics]

I just want you to be happy.

[Sinister Rouge]

I just want you to be happy.

I willl be happier fixing problems here, thank you.