100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Democrat war on black kids? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Democrats don't want Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rices. They want Al Sharptons.. They want uneducated servants that they can manipulate. Condoleezza  
Clarence 
Thomas 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 09/13/13 10:04 AM
|
|
Public education is not education ... it is schooling. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body." - John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Joseph Stalin "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion." - Joseph Goebbels And how would you propose we educate the population? If the public schools are so bad, how about fixing them, instead of merely cutting their budgets? If you don't like what they teach, you can petition the Boards of Education. As far as I know, each state opens discussion on curriculum to public comment and debate nearly every year. That's why South Carolina still teaches "Intelligent Design" and things like that. Otherwise, your arguments are a bunch of quaint platitudes. Unless,of course you think the two Uncle Joes were right! 
Besides,you made my case! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not nice to confuse the liberals with facts you two! Their minds are already made up for them! this statement could be an accurate representation of any group one considers themselves belonging to on here I don't see much of anyone posting whose mind isn't made up with the 'facts' they choose to believe Very True! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new World Order has the darker complexion populace on the rise against the faltering yet still in control Euro centric leanings of the real minority which are Whites. For example (1) Russia is geographically 90% Asian, yet the power base is centered in European idealogical Whites, (2) the fastest growing economies are Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, China and India. These emerging economic powers are threatened by internal and or neighboring conflicts sponsored and supported by the fading Eurocentric Old World, USA included.
The Revolution has begun and this is a War that Blacks and other "perceived" minorities must and will win. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell the panthers to brang it on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new World Order has the darker complexion populace on the rise against the faltering yet still in control Euro centric leanings of the real minority which are Whites. For example (1) Russia is geographically 90% Asian, yet the power base is centered in European idealogical Whites, (2) the fastest growing economies are Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, China and India. These emerging economic powers are threatened by internal and or neighboring conflicts sponsored and supported by the fading Eurocentric Old World, USA included. The Revolution has begun and this is a War that Blacks and other "perceived" minorities must and will win. And what exactly will this war consist of? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new World Order has the darker complexion populace on the rise against the faltering yet still in control Euro centric leanings of the real minority which are Whites. For example (1) Russia is geographically 90% Asian, yet the power base is centered in European idealogical Whites, (2) the fastest growing economies are Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, China and India. These emerging economic powers are threatened by internal and or neighboring conflicts sponsored and supported by the fading Eurocentric Old World, USA included. The Revolution has begun and this is a War that Blacks and other "perceived" minorities must and will win. So basicly you are doing your part to promote racism, and are a liberal to boot...... explains a lot! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new World Order has the darker complexion populace on the rise against the faltering yet still in control Euro centric leanings of the real minority which are Whites. For example (1) Russia is geographically 90% Asian, yet the power base is centered in European idealogical Whites, (2) the fastest growing economies are Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, China and India. These emerging economic powers are threatened by internal and or neighboring conflicts sponsored and supported by the fading Eurocentric Old World, USA included. The Revolution has begun and this is a War that Blacks and other "perceived" minorities must and will win. Nothing to do with Race! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I WISH the focus was more on improving education in the public schools ...
That would take a shift in the thinking of the teachers unions. Right now, they are more concerned about what benefits their members more than what benefits children. ...but until then, I Think the kids should get the best possible schooling however they need to,,,
Giving poor minority kids the best possible schooling is the goal of the supporters of school vouchers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new World Order has the darker complexion populace on the rise against the faltering yet still in control Euro centric leanings of the real minority which are Whites. For example (1) Russia is geographically 90% Asian, yet the power base is centered in European idealogical Whites, (2) the fastest growing economies are Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, China and India. These emerging economic powers are threatened by internal and or neighboring conflicts sponsored and supported by the fading Eurocentric Old World, USA included. The Revolution has begun and this is a War that Blacks and other "perceived" minorities must and will win. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, leaders in the Democratic Party are preventing poor minority children from getting a better education . . . and who do the parents of those children vote for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are excerpts from a Chicago Tribune editorial titled "United States v. minority children":
The Justice Department is concerned that giving vouchers mostly to minority children so they can attend better schools perpetuates segregation. Best then to leave them in their failing schools? It's a sinister argument to say the least. . .
. . . Is the Justice Department's supposed goal doable? That is, can a colorblind choice program exist under the weight of 40-year-old desegregation mandates? Or is Justice's real goal to shut down school choice? Because it certainly looks that way. A skeptic would note that teachers unions, who have given the Obama administration plenty of money and muscle, see vouchers as threats to the public education industry's status quo. This we know: If Justice can persuade the courts to roll back Louisiana's successful program, the feds will have to answer to parents like Lakisha Fuselier. More than 93 percent of the parents of students in the program reported satisfaction this year with their child's school, according to the state superintendent's office. Students who switched schools performed better on literacy and math tests. If sending all those kids back to their failing public schools is progress, as defined by the government, then what a despicable outcome: the federal agency whose title and mission is "justice" perpetuating ... an injustice. Although the title of the above-quoted editorial is "United States vs. minority children", a better-fitting title would be "Democratic Party v. minority children", because this effort to keep poor minority children in poorly-performing schools is coming primarily from Democrat politicians, who are more interested in appeasing their teachers-union masters than they are in providing poor minority children with the best education available. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new World Order has the darker complexion populace on the rise against the faltering yet still in control Euro centric leanings of the real minority which are Whites. For example (1) Russia is geographically 90% Asian, yet the power base is centered in European idealogical Whites, (2) the fastest growing economies are Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, China and India. These emerging economic powers are threatened by internal and or neighboring conflicts sponsored and supported by the fading Eurocentric Old World, USA included. The Revolution has begun and this is a War that Blacks and other "perceived" minorities must and will win. So basicly you are doing your part to promote racism, and are a liberal to boot...... explains a lot!
No..I am Neither one. I just see more of your own opinions here.
We all have opinions!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new World Order has the darker complexion populace on the rise against the faltering yet still in control Euro centric leanings of the real minority which are Whites. For example (1) Russia is geographically 90% Asian, yet the power base is centered in European idealogical Whites, (2) the fastest growing economies are Malaysia, Africa, Brazil, China and India. These emerging economic powers are threatened by internal and or neighboring conflicts sponsored and supported by the fading Eurocentric Old World, USA included. The Revolution has begun and this is a War that Blacks and other "perceived" minorities must and will win. And what exactly will this war consist of? The above quote is stated as fact. I will ask again. What exactly will this war consist of? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are excerpts from a Chicago Tribune editorial titled "United States v. minority children": The Justice Department is concerned that giving vouchers mostly to minority children so they can attend better schools perpetuates segregation. Best then to leave them in their failing schools? It's a sinister argument to say the least. . .
. . . Is the Justice Department's supposed goal doable? That is, can a colorblind choice program exist under the weight of 40-year-old desegregation mandates? Or is Justice's real goal to shut down school choice? Because it certainly looks that way. A skeptic would note that teachers unions, who have given the Obama administration plenty of money and muscle, see vouchers as threats to the public education industry's status quo. This we know: If Justice can persuade the courts to roll back Louisiana's successful program, the feds will have to answer to parents like Lakisha Fuselier. More than 93 percent of the parents of students in the program reported satisfaction this year with their child's school, according to the state superintendent's office. Students who switched schools performed better on literacy and math tests. If sending all those kids back to their failing public schools is progress, as defined by the government, then what a despicable outcome: the federal agency whose title and mission is "justice" perpetuating ... an injustice. Although the title of the above-quoted editorial is "United States vs. minority children", a better-fitting title would be "Democratic Party v. minority children", because this effort to keep poor minority children in poorly-performing schools is coming primarily from Democrat politicians, who are more interested in appeasing their teachers-union masters than they are in providing poor minority children with the best education available. so, on the flip side,, if trying to maintain desegregation is an 'anti black children' policy to keep black children in the poor performing schools with their white counterparts,,,, isn't dismantling the desegregation with vouchers an 'anti whit children' policy that leaves the fellow students of black children behind in those same schools? just wondering why does this become bout 'black children' instead of about better education for children period? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Tue 09/17/13 05:13 AM
|
|
Here are excerpts from a Chicago Tribune editorial titled "United States v. minority children": The Justice Department is concerned that giving vouchers mostly to minority children so they can attend better schools perpetuates segregation. Best then to leave them in their failing schools? It's a sinister argument to say the least. . .
. . . Is the Justice Department's supposed goal doable? That is, can a colorblind choice program exist under the weight of 40-year-old desegregation mandates? Or is Justice's real goal to shut down school choice? Because it certainly looks that way. A skeptic would note that teachers unions, who have given the Obama administration plenty of money and muscle, see vouchers as threats to the public education industry's status quo. This we know: If Justice can persuade the courts to roll back Louisiana's successful program, the feds will have to answer to parents like Lakisha Fuselier. More than 93 percent of the parents of students in the program reported satisfaction this year with their child's school, according to the state superintendent's office. Students who switched schools performed better on literacy and math tests. If sending all those kids back to their failing public schools is progress, as defined by the government, then what a despicable outcome: the federal agency whose title and mission is "justice" perpetuating ... an injustice. Although the title of the above-quoted editorial is "United States vs. minority children", a better-fitting title would be "Democratic Party v. minority children", because this effort to keep poor minority children in poorly-performing schools is coming primarily from Democrat politicians, who are more interested in appeasing their teachers-union masters than they are in providing poor minority children with the best education available. so, on the flip side,, if trying to maintain desegregation is an 'anti black children' policy to keep black children in the poor performing schools with their white counterparts,,,, isn't dismantling the desegregation with vouchers an 'anti whit children' policy that leaves the fellow students of black children behind in those same schools? just wondering why does this become bout 'black children' instead of about better education for children period? Try as I did to find credibility in the argument that giving vouchers to "mostly" minority children so they can attend better schools perpetuates segregation, I could not.....Looking for a problem that does not exist, but has the potential to exist may sound proactive, but the reality is it's just one more example of "how" institutional racism begins when government creates policies that in effect hurt "primarily" black minorities.....One more way to keep blacks at the mercy of government.... Trying to halt continuation of a colorblind program is discrimination....The program does not act based upon race or ethnicity, it acts based unpon income...Income is the ONLY qualifier needed to make application..... To answer your question Harmony....It becomes as question of race to some because 90% of voucher recipients are minorities....I remember a post you made several weeks earlier in which you stated your daughter would be attending private schools...If you have plans to use the voucher system, this latest interference (attempt to control) should be of the utmost concern to you because private education is cost prohibitive for the average wage earner.... The correct answer to the problem is not preventing children who attend sub par rated schools from attending private schools, it's doing whatever it takes to bring those sub par rated schools up to par....Every child attending grades 1 - 12 in America is entitled to receive the best education available.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of the burden of the quality of education rides on the shoulders of the homeowners.
Higher taxed areas provide higher quality education. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of the burden of the quality of education rides on the shoulders of the homeowners. Higher taxed areas provide higher quality education. That's right Will and as the ghetto grows, so do the sub par schools ....Bottom line is the burden of cleanup always falls to the working man.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are excerpts from a Chicago Tribune editorial titled "United States v. minority children": The Justice Department is concerned that giving vouchers mostly to minority children so they can attend better schools perpetuates segregation. Best then to leave them in their failing schools? It's a sinister argument to say the least. . .
. . . Is the Justice Department's supposed goal doable? That is, can a colorblind choice program exist under the weight of 40-year-old desegregation mandates? Or is Justice's real goal to shut down school choice? Because it certainly looks that way. A skeptic would note that teachers unions, who have given the Obama administration plenty of money and muscle, see vouchers as threats to the public education industry's status quo. This we know: If Justice can persuade the courts to roll back Louisiana's successful program, the feds will have to answer to parents like Lakisha Fuselier. More than 93 percent of the parents of students in the program reported satisfaction this year with their child's school, according to the state superintendent's office. Students who switched schools performed better on literacy and math tests. If sending all those kids back to their failing public schools is progress, as defined by the government, then what a despicable outcome: the federal agency whose title and mission is "justice" perpetuating ... an injustice. Although the title of the above-quoted editorial is "United States vs. minority children", a better-fitting title would be "Democratic Party v. minority children", because this effort to keep poor minority children in poorly-performing schools is coming primarily from Democrat politicians, who are more interested in appeasing their teachers-union masters than they are in providing poor minority children with the best education available. so, on the flip side,, if trying to maintain desegregation is an 'anti black children' policy to keep black children in the poor performing schools with their white counterparts,,,, isn't dismantling the desegregation with vouchers an 'anti whit children' policy that leaves the fellow students of black children behind in those same schools? just wondering why does this become bout 'black children' instead of about better education for children period? Try as I did to find credibility in the argument that giving vouchers to "mostly" minority children so they can attend better schools perpetuates segregation, I could not.....Looking for a problem that does not exist, but has the potential to exist may sound proactive, but the reality is it's just one more example of "how" institutional racism begins when government creates policies that in effect hurt "primarily" black minorities.....One more way to keep blacks at the mercy of government.... Trying to halt continuation of a colorblind program is discrimination....The program does not act based upon race or ethnicity, it acts based unpon income...Income is the ONLY qualifier needed to make application..... To answer your question Harmony....It becomes as question of race to some because 90% of voucher recipients are minorities....I remember a post you made several weeks earlier in which you stated your daughter would be attending private schools...If you have plans to use the voucher system, this latest interference (attempt to control) should be of the utmost concern to you because private education is cost prohibitive for the average wage earner.... The correct answer to the problem is not preventing children who attend sub par rated schools from attending private schools, it's doing whatever it takes to bring those sub par rated schools up to par....Every child attending grades 1 - 12 in America is entitled to receive the best education available.... that's my point if children are attending school together,, than the income becomes less the issue and if children in integrated schools are leaving those schools with vouchers, and if those children are 'mostly' black children, that means a lot of other non black children get to remain in the allegedly subpar educational system either way,, seems someone could find racism , 'anti black', or 'anti white', if they wanted to I think the better option, instead of diminishing it to a racial issue, is to use it to highlight the need for those INTEGRATED Schools to offer better education,,, |
|
|
|
|
