Are our children learning?

[Seperates]

What happened to your "enter" key?

My studies have shown that people are more likely to read a post when each line is it's own "paragraph", this is because either a) the post is bigger, b) because people are lazy and it seems that they don't what to read a paragraph when it is single spaced, or c) because then people wonder wtf happened to my enter key

[Aelosia]

What happened to your "enter" key?

My studies have shown that people are more likely to read a post when each line is it's own "paragraph", this is because either a) the post is bigger, b) because people are lazy and it seems that they don't what to read a paragraph when it is single spaced, or c) because then people wonder wtf happened to my enter key

Cute. I can't say it doesn't work

[Muravyets]

You know, of course, the reason why these schools are rubbish is because they're run by the government, and no amount of funding will solve this problem; they'll keep functioning no matter how badly they perform, because they don't have worry about things like bankruptcy like the private sector does.

Yeah, because the private sector contains no examples of people not having to worry about bankruptcy or failure just because they run their businesses like shit, drive them into the ground, and/or loot the coffers of their own companies like a bunch of pirates, but still get to go on to their next ransacking with multi-million dollar bonuses.

Well, yeah. Since there's a chance something could go wrong with private sector schools, we should dismiss the idea outright, while continuing to advocate for public sector schools even though they could go wrong just as badly. Makes perfect sense, by my standards.

Well, yeah. Since there's a chance something could go wrong with public sector schools, we should dismiss the idea outright, while continuing to advocate for private sector schools even though they could go wrong just as badly. Makes perfect sense, by your standards.

[Muravyets]

You know, of course, the reason why these schools are rubbish is because they're run by the government, and no amount of funding will solve this problem; they'll keep functioning no matter how badly they perform, because they don't have worry about things like bankruptcy like the private sector does.

Yeah, because the private sector contains no examples of people not having to worry about bankruptcy or failure just because they run their businesses like shit, drive them into the ground, and/or loot the coffers of their own companies like a bunch of pirates, but still get to go on to their next ransacking with multi-million dollar bonuses.

Private sector companies who don't have to worry about bankruptcy due to terrible performance almost always are in such a situation because of government intervention keeping a company alive which should have collapsed and had its assets bought up by competent companies long ago.

Back that assertion up with some facts or live with the snazzy Bullshit label.

[New Genoa]

The citizenship test just doesn't know about the Real America^tm, am I right?

[Gauntleted Fist]

The citizenship test just doesn't know about the Real America^tm, am I right?

Because you can't be a Real American^tm if you're an Evil Foreigner^tm, right?

[Big Jim P]

The citizenship test just doesn't know about the Real America^tm, am I right?

Because you can't be a Real American^tm if you're an Evil Foreigner^tm, right?

Got it in one.

[RoI3]

Most of teachers and professors are left-wing drones = the school fail
whats a coincidence

Liberal spend too much time brainwashing instead to teach

I'm saying nothing.

[Rhodmhire]

Most of teachers and professors are left-wing drones = the school fail
whats a coincidence

Liberal spend too much time brainwashing instead to teach

I'm saying nothing.

Nice to see you're back.

[ChevyRocks]

You know, of course, the reason why these schools are rubbish is because they're run by the government, and no amount of funding will solve this problem; they'll keep functioning no matter how badly they perform, because they don't have worry about things like bankruptcy like the private sector does.

Yeah, because the private sector contains no examples of people not having to worry about bankruptcy or failure just because they run their businesses like shit, drive them into the ground, and/or loot the coffers of their own companies like a bunch of pirates, but still get to go on to their next ransacking with multi-million dollar bonuses.

Private sector companies who don't have to worry about bankruptcy due to terrible performance almost always are in such a situation because of government intervention keeping a company alive which should have collapsed and had its assets bought up by competent companies long ago.

Back that assertion up with some facts or live with the snazzy Bullshit label.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG? It's not exactly difficult to find those sort of companies.

[Linux and the X]

Here's a immigration test with the tougher questions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I would have to study for most of them (is not an American).

60% correct.

Number thirteen has two correct answers.

No, only one answer.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The question is as to constitutional requirements, not simply practical requirements. Since there is that exception, being a natural-born citizen is not necessarily required by the constitution.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Here's a immigration test with the tougher questions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I would have to study for most of them (is not an American).

60% correct.

Number thirteen has two correct answers.

No, only one answer.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The question is as to constitutional requirements, not simply practical requirements. Since there is that exception, being a natural-born citizen is not necessarily required by the constitution.

Is there a person alive from 1787?

[Drachmar]

Here's a immigration test with the tougher questions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I would have to study for most of them (is not an American).

60% correct.

Number thirteen has two correct answers.

No, only one answer.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The question is as to constitutional requirements, not simply practical requirements. Since there is that exception, being a natural-born citizen is not necessarily required by the constitution.

Not a requirement if you were born before 1787. Now it is a requirement because there's no one left alive from when the document was written. You'd be hard pressed to find someone still alive from the 18th century.

[Czardas]

You know, of course, the reason why these schools are rubbish is because they're run by the government, and no amount of funding will solve this problem; they'll keep functioning no matter how badly they perform, because they don't have worry about things like bankruptcy like the private sector does.

Yeah, because the private sector contains no examples of people not having to worry about bankruptcy or failure just because they run their businesses like shit, drive them into the ground, and/or loot the coffers of their own companies like a bunch of pirates, but still get to go on to their next ransacking with multi-million dollar bonuses.

Well, yeah. Since there's a chance something could go wrong with private sector schools, we should dismiss the idea outright, while continuing to advocate for public sector schools even though they could go wrong just as badly. Makes perfect sense, by my standards.

Well, yeah. Since there's a chance something could go wrong with public sector schools, we should dismiss the idea outright, while continuing to advocate for private sector schools even though they could go wrong just as badly. Makes perfect sense, by your standards.

Well, no. Something is wrong with public schools. Compare the quality of your average public school with that of your average private school in the USA. Getting rid of the public school system altogether, and replacing the money spent on it with money spent on giving vouchers for poor students to attend private schools, would be obviously beneficial. Unless you're trying to argue that reality isn't really happening or something.

[Linux and the X]

Here's a immigration test with the tougher questions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I would have to study for most of them (is not an American).

60% correct.

Number thirteen has two correct answers.

No, only one answer.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The question is as to constitutional requirements, not simply practical requirements. Since there is that exception, being a natural-born citizen is not necessarily required by the constitution.

Not a requirement if you were born before 1787. Now it is a requirement because there's no one left alive from when the document was written. You'd be hard pressed to find someone still alive from the 18th century.

It is a practical requirement, yes, but not a constitutional requirement, which is what the question is asking.

[Muravyets]

You know, of course, the reason why these schools are rubbish is because they're run by the government, and no amount of funding will solve this problem; they'll keep functioning no matter how badly they perform, because they don't have worry about things like bankruptcy like the private sector does.

Yeah, because the private sector contains no examples of people not having to worry about bankruptcy or failure just because they run their businesses like shit, drive them into the ground, and/or loot the coffers of their own companies like a bunch of pirates, but still get to go on to their next ransacking with multi-million dollar bonuses.

Private sector companies who don't have to worry about bankruptcy due to terrible performance almost always are in such a situation because of government intervention keeping a company alive which should have collapsed and had its assets bought up by competent companies long ago.

Back that assertion up with some facts or live with the snazzy Bullshit label.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG? It's not exactly difficult to find those sort of companies.

And what do they have to do with your claim that companies generally only fail if the government interferes with them? And how did the government cause the failure of AIG?

[Muravyets]

You know, of course, the reason why these schools are rubbish is because they're run by the government, and no amount of funding will solve this problem; they'll keep functioning no matter how badly they perform, because they don't have worry about things like bankruptcy like the private sector does.

Yeah, because the private sector contains no examples of people not having to worry about bankruptcy or failure just because they run their businesses like shit, drive them into the ground, and/or loot the coffers of their own companies like a bunch of pirates, but still get to go on to their next ransacking with multi-million dollar bonuses.

Well, yeah. Since there's a chance something could go wrong with private sector schools, we should dismiss the idea outright, while continuing to advocate for public sector schools even though they could go wrong just as badly. Makes perfect sense, by my standards.

Well, yeah. Since there's a chance something could go wrong with public sector schools, we should dismiss the idea outright, while continuing to advocate for private sector schools even though they could go wrong just as badly. Makes perfect sense, by your standards.

Well, no. Something is wrong with public schools. Compare the quality of your average public school with that of your average private school in the USA. Getting rid of the public school system altogether, and replacing the money spent on it with money spent on giving vouchers for poor students to attend private schools, would be obviously beneficial. Unless you're trying to argue that reality isn't really happening or something.

You can't make that comparison because there is no established voucher system with a track record to compare with. Therefore, your argument amounts to "Let's not fix the system we have. Instead let's replace it with some made up stuff that has never been tested and run it along a business model that we know has an extensive record of finacial malfeasance, waste and failure. We'll just claim that THIS TIME it'll work. No, really."

Meanwhile, by the way, you ignore the reason why we have a public education system in the first place, which is because the privately funded schools in days of yore did not get the job done. Education was striated by class, with the poor left with less or no service while the rich benefitted freely. In this country, as in most other modern nations, this was considered an undesirable condition for both practical and moral reasons. Unless you are willing to abandon the idea of education as a universal benefit to society, then your argument in favor of private education is weak. Yes, I anticipate that you will claim that vouchers would make such a system egalitarian, but you have no evidence that this would be true, while we do have a history of unequal private education to compare public education with.

[Taeshan]

Is they, Apparently not. Well im not really.

[Tunizcha]

I isn't. TYT is really good for getting your daily news feed, lulz, weird shit, political opinions, smacking down on Republicans and Democrats, and Health Insurance reform news.

[Drachmar]

Here's a immigration test with the tougher questions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I would have to study for most of them (is not an American).

60% correct.

Number thirteen has two correct answers.

No, only one answer.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The question is as to constitutional requirements, not simply practical requirements. Since there is that exception, being a natural-born citizen is not necessarily required by the constitution.

Not a requirement if you were born before 1787. Now it is a requirement because there's no one left alive from when the document was written. You'd be hard pressed to find someone still alive from the 18th century.

It is a practical requirement, yes, but not a constitutional requirement, which is what the question is asking.

Constetushun skillz...ai has it

[Antilon]

Failing a citizenship test doesn't necessarily mean that children are stupid overall. Many of them could be more inclined to math or science, and find history to be merely detestful memory practices (although I couldn't disagree more). Although I think it would be best if children were well-rounded in all subject areas to at least have a general idea.

[ChevyRocks]

And what do they have to do with your claim that companies generally only fail if the government interferes with them? And how did the government cause the failure of AIG?

While I certainly believe that government intervention in companies causes far more problems than it solves, that's not actually what I was talking about. If you'd read my post carefully, my point was that without government intervention, companies would have nothing between them and bankruptcy but sound financial decisions. In a world of government intervention, even companies loaded with corruption and rubbish financial advisers can continue operating if they can get enough sympathy from the government to give them a bailout.

Certainly companies are quite capable of failing without the government's help, but in the case of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, it was government policies which created an environment in which they could operate recklessly (indeed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both directly sponsored by the Federal government), and when the Fed finally realized they were failing they decided the only solution was nationalization.

[Takaram]

I'm a sophomore in high school, and I don't know if this is just Florida, or other states too, but in Florida, school grades are based upon how well the sophomore class does on the FCAT. That past week, we had a class meeting in the auditorium, where they tried to encourage us to do well on the test this year, and these were the numbers they threw out.
Last year, roughly 25% of last years sophomores, this years juniors, passed the reading FCAT. My class passed it last year with roughly 40%, and they called that a good passing rate. That about knocked me out right there. I fear that the day our generation takes over, this country is well and truly fucked.

[Linux and the X]

I'm a sophomore in high school, and I don't know if this is just Florida, or other states too, but in Florida, school grades are based upon how well the sophomore class does on the FCAT. That past week, we had a class meeting in the auditorium, where they tried to encourage us to do well on the test this year, and these were the numbers they threw out.
Last year, roughly 25% of last years sophomores, this years juniors, passed the reading FCAT. My class passed it last year with roughly 40%, and they called that a good passing rate. That about knocked me out right there. I fear that the day our generation takes over, this country is well and truly fucked.

I think it's all years, not just sophomores, as elementary and middle schools are also graded.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

I'm a sophomore in high school, and I don't know if this is just Florida, or other states too, but in Florida, school grades are based upon how well the sophomore class does on the FCAT. That past week, we had a class meeting in the auditorium, where they tried to encourage us to do well on the test this year, and these were the numbers they threw out.
Last year, roughly 25% of last years sophomores, this years juniors, passed the reading FCAT. My class passed it last year with roughly 40%, and they called that a good passing rate. That about knocked me out right there. I fear that the day our generation takes over, this country is well and truly fucked.

Thanks Takaram, you help prove what I was trying to say earlier on this topic. Their was not reason to take a public poll test seriously. It didn't effect the kids grades, right? So WTF, why no blow it off, or put down crazy stuff for fun?