Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Omnis
- 3,780 comments
- 157,066 views
- 5,812
- shmogt
So I mentioned this a bit before, but learned new facts that I will share. You can catch a more deatiled explanation of all of this on CNN, it was a special that put all my thoughts and more together. It was very good on just giving the truth with no bias either way.
Education in the US is nothing special as anyone who's gone to school there knows. The system is set up to have kids go in, do the time, get out and repeat the next day. Perfect for the industrial revolution in when it was made. Most teachers don't care that much whether everyone in the class is all learning and pretty much pass you for showing and completing some assignments.
South Korea has their students in school for slightly longer days and extra few weeks compared to the US. All this time adds up to two extra years of schooling. The kids test scores are threw the roof and I think first in the wold right now. They have extra hour schools that actually have to be shut down before 10pm to avoid kids from over studying. However the suicide rate is abonornally high probably from all the presure.
Finland on the other hand has kids start school much later in life. Their schools are not close to as long as the US and yet they test just as high as South Korea. They have decided that it's not about forcing the kids to learn non stop as it is to have super great teachers to teach them thoroughly. The teachers are highly respected jobs up there with doctors and lawyers. Only the top 90% of the class are allowed into the "teachers college" and every teacher must have a phd. As opposed to the US where the bottom 20% are the majority of teachers.
Personally I have always thought Finland's approach is by far the way to go. Kids learn best from experience. You can tell a baby to do something, but they will learn much faster if they actually try it. Finland gives the kids lots of time off to try things they like to do while giving them intense and focused time while in school threw their excellent teachers. US kids l guarantee will not respond better to more and harder work loads like the Koreans anyway. What do you guys think is the better way or other ideas on how to improve the school systems? Also what are your views on standardize test? I know I used to be great at leanring, but would choke and forget everything when test time came.
Education in the US is nothing special as anyone who's gone to school there knows. The system is set up to have kids go in, do the time, get out and repeat the next day. Perfect for the industrial revolution in when it was made. Most teachers don't care that much whether everyone in the class is all learning and pretty much pass you for showing and completing some assignments.
South Korea has their students in school for slightly longer days and extra few weeks compared to the US. All this time adds up to two extra years of schooling. The kids test scores are threw the roof and I think first in the wold right now. They have extra hour schools that actually have to be shut down before 10pm to avoid kids from over studying. However the suicide rate is abonornally high probably from all the presure.
Finland on the other hand has kids start school much later in life. Their schools are not close to as long as the US and yet they test just as high as South Korea. They have decided that it's not about forcing the kids to learn non stop as it is to have super great teachers to teach them thoroughly. The teachers are highly respected jobs up there with doctors and lawyers. Only the top 90% of the class are allowed into the "teachers college" and every teacher must have a phd. As opposed to the US where the bottom 20% are the majority of teachers.
Personally I have always thought Finland's approach is by far the way to go. Kids learn best from experience. You can tell a baby to do something, but they will learn much faster if they actually try it. Finland gives the kids lots of time off to try things they like to do while giving them intense and focused time while in school threw their excellent teachers. US kids l guarantee will not respond better to more and harder work loads like the Koreans anyway. What do you guys think is the better way or other ideas on how to improve the school systems? Also what are your views on standardize test? I know I used to be great at leanring, but would choke and forget everything when test time came.
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
👍👍 This. Infotardment is the name of the game. Just as long as we are amused and passive instead of being infuriated, they win.I guess I must not be very American like if I want Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman to be the GOP canidate. I and others on here have stated why they aren't in the lead, go back and read and we wont keep chasing our tails!
It's simple you have a propoganda machine (media) churning out what they want, it is much more news worthy to show Perry as a joke, rather than some of the best clips for arguing on topics that really affect Americans. The media knows who makes sense, but then again the media is owned by companies who have a particular idea in mind and only one person fills that. You have MSNBC acting as if they're OWS's friends when in reality OWS doesn't like Obama they just want honesty and freedom, but MSNBC always has to put that Obama twist in. Why not when they're owned by GE whose chairman works with Obama on a few things that he and his company benefit from at the end of the day. Oh and speaking of dems what about Pelosi and things she did to benefit her husband that had a hand in Visa...a deep hand I should say.
However, I can't be unjust because the Republicans aren't better by a long shot. They promote the idea of letting the big companies do what the want with America yet these same companies make us look like a joke which then hurts the free trade on the rest of the world. Romney will tell you though businesses are people too, I never met a person that is more than one person. Oh and then we have the wars and the military budget, let's not cut it down, if we did the boogie man (terrorism) is gonna get us, even if we're the most powerful and technological.
At the end of the day though the party is more important than the people. The party comes first and John Doe's family comes second. The problem is America eats up the media like a McDonald's quarter pounder with cheese (inhales), they like it but don't see the lies and half truths it gives. It glams up and makes it look nice, but at the end of the day it's still moving you from what is right and honest.
Last edited:
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
The rest of your post was true, but this part isn't. The only people who would say this are ignorant or rich. What did Bush do that helped most Americans and wasn't blindly following republican ideology? Disclaimer- I assume intelligence as a country's leader is measured by the standard of living for the people in that country as well as relations with other countries. I think it is fair to say Bush did neither of those.
And subscribing to Regan-trickle down- supply side economics is a good qualifier for being not-so intelligent in my opinion.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
You're looking at it wrongly, you're confusing what is right with smart. Just cause someone does the right thing doesn't mean they're smart, and the opposite is true as well. Bush may have not done the right thing, but he wasn't stupid, he made the world believe that Iraq was a threat to not only the U.S. but the world. (Him and his admin of course)
To say the Bush admin is stupid would be wrong cause at the end of the day they screwed America left and right, but came out in the clear. I'm not saying it's right but it takes a clever group to pull it off, but then again that's how politics work. I dislike them but to call them stupid or any admin that gets in the white house would be a silly underestimate of their power.
Also I agree with ChaosStar and I think I already saw that vid.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I personally don't credit Bush or his administration with that much intelligence - the fact that they were able to do what they did says less about their intelligence and more about the fundamental weakness of the checks and balances that should have been able to stop them. It's debatable whether or not they really were all that clever, or whether they were just able to use their positions of power to manipulate gullible people in the media and elsewhere. It is also debatable that 'getting away with it' means that you're smart... nor do I accept the idea that achieving high office, power or vast amounts of money are necessarily proof of high intelligence either.
Granted, Bush was not as thick as he was/is portrayed by many people, but I certainly don't think that he was a genius either. And he certainly was not the architect of the Neo-Con ideology that prevailed throughout his presidency, but merely a figurehead who had to sell it to the public, often at the expense of going into much detail, which he seemed largely incapable of doing.
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Indeed. Bush's educational history has him as being a merely slightly-above-average student and a capable businessman. You don't have to be Frank Whittle to get a business degree (even a Masters), but Forrest Gump would struggle a bit.
Ultimately the protrayal of Bush as a gibbering chimp is due to flaws in his public speaking ability. Yes, he seemed a bit fish-out-of-water and reasonably often, but not being able to articulate clearly when under the glaring spotlight of the world's media (after being merely a businessman and Governor) doesn't make you an intellectual inferior to Homer Simpson - just as being a slick talker and confident public orator doesn't make you the best President since the last one who spoke soothing words while taking your wallet.
It's nothing short of laziness to assume a man who graduated from two of the world's most prestigious universities, had a successful business career and was re-elected (slightly more viably) as the President of the only remaining superpower is the world's stupidest man because he said some things that were ludicrous. No, he probably wasn't the smartest person ever to be elected President, but he's probably not the dumbest (and was at least a businessman, rather than a lawyer or politician), certainly not the worst (he got re-elected) and absolutely not the most idiotic human being who ever lived.
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
What makes one an intelligent leader if doing what is right for the population isn't it? You said Bush screwed America and you think that qualifies him as an intelligent leader, or showed intelligence in office as Danoff put it?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
me
Obama has set the bar extremely low. It's not that Bush was a genius in office, but Obama routinely manages to impress with stupidity. Perhaps a "great deal" of intelligence is a bit of an overstatement, but compared to the mentally handicapped standard most people apply it seemed appropriate.
I don't fault Bush for any of his foreign policy. Domestically the president is NOT responsible for the standard of living of the people in the country. To think so is to misunderstand the nature of the American government in general and especially the executive branch. But it is a common mistake.
You should spend some time studying economics.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
What makes one an intelligent leader if doing what is right for the population isn't it? You said Bush screwed America and you think that qualifies him as an intelligent leader, or showed intelligence in office as Danoff put it?
So when someone does the right thing they're smart? Also smart in what area, as a leader or just someone fufilling the agenda at the time?
- 54
- flair1111
ron paul is winning everything and the media is doing their best to pretend he isnt there. its back firing. follow the money people. follow who makes money off of war and who owns the news media.
ron is gaining massive ground now. they only let him speak for 90 seconds in the last debate. there is a reason. if only america could hear ron speak in a real format unlike these "debates", i promise you, he would be the next president.
i got to meet him this past weekend and got to see veterans of all ages stand behind him on stage and let me tell you...he is serious about fixing this country and getting rid of the crooks.
no income tax
no preemptive wars
no tsa
no irs, fed, nafta etc....
no undeclared or unconstitutional wars
protect our own boarders, not those 5000 miles away
no bailouts
no foreign aid
no nation building
no entangling alliances
just freedom and the best free america possible under dr paul.
ron is gaining massive ground now. they only let him speak for 90 seconds in the last debate. there is a reason. if only america could hear ron speak in a real format unlike these "debates", i promise you, he would be the next president.
i got to meet him this past weekend and got to see veterans of all ages stand behind him on stage and let me tell you...he is serious about fixing this country and getting rid of the crooks.
no income tax
no preemptive wars
no tsa
no irs, fed, nafta etc....
no undeclared or unconstitutional wars
protect our own boarders, not those 5000 miles away
no bailouts
no foreign aid
no nation building
no entangling alliances
just freedom and the best free america possible under dr paul.
- 1,255
- Indiana
- camaroyenko
- No....just no.
- 38,951
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Even as conservative as I am, that just doesn't seem possible
Because it isn't. That's why you take away as much power as possible-- so that the inside crooks don't have it and the outside crooks can't get it.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Dapper
An analogy I've heard about corruption in government (I may have read it here, I feel like Danoff or Foolkiller posted it), is that corruption in government is like an angry dog.
Compare an angry, ferocious pit bull, ready to attack. This is like the massive governments we have, since they have so much power (big dog), the corruption (angry dog) can do a lot of damage. A small, limited government would likely still have corrupt people in it, except instea of a pit bull, it would be more akin to an angry Chihuahua. With a small govenment, corruption isn't really a big of a deal, because if the government doesn't control much, there isn't much of importance to corrupt in the first place.
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
I would have to agree that Bush was mainly just a figurehead in his administration. It always seemed to me that Cheney and Rove were really the ones pulling the strings probably with some input from Condi. I say this because despite his degrees and (failed) business experiences, I don't see him as being very capable on his own in the leadership role. I'm not trying to say that he was as stupid as he often appeared to be, but I mean to say that he surrounded himself with intellects vastly superior to his own in order to accomplish whatever boyhood logic he chose to pursue. Unfortunately.
Wisdom is more the issue than intelligence.
Wise people don't proclaim war on a tactic of war, by using the very tactic that they are attempting to end. In doing so, perpetuating the cycle into the next generation and likely beyond.
Wisdom is more the issue than intelligence.
Wise people don't proclaim war on a tactic of war, by using the very tactic that they are attempting to end. In doing so, perpetuating the cycle into the next generation and likely beyond.
- 5,812
- shmogt
I'm all for Ron to win, but it's still gonna be super hard to do what he wants. They're are lots of rich people who will persuade him from not going as far as he needs to, to change things. Also all these major networks are owned by insanely rich people who will be screwed with more taxes and less money for them if Ron wins. Something really needs to be done tho because America is really starting to turn to shambles.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I disagree let's look at it this way, Ron Paul has been a congressman since the late 80s and challenged Washington on many issues. He hasn't seemed to change and been probably the most consistant rep. on Capitol Hill. There is a good amount of benefit for a company to buy out a couple of Senators or Congress reps more so than a Presidential Canidate. Also if he could be persuaded he'd be getting a lot more press right now and he'd also have campaign backing from big corps. However, the Republicans are still going to need something big because if Obama's projected Billion dollar campaign fund is true, then no canidate to his opposite is going to raise that same amount.
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Shmogt, you're right that the lobbyists will probably do all they can to persuade Dr. Paul otherwise. He's got an excellent record of turning away his local lobbyists though, and despite saying no to all his local special interests, his district kept reelecting him. I think he'll have them covered. This man is 75 years old, he's been around the block a few times.
His biggest hurtle will be congress. Without using the executive orders, which he despises, the best he can really do is propose ideas to congress and campaign for the ideas. Gain public support and whatnot. It's not really his job to do that, but it's not a problem as long as he doesn't sign anything into law, which can be done by executive order. Paul's core voters, the real libertarians, know that his "promises" depend on congress in order to happen. The rest of them, well, they might end up disappointed in the first 4 years. Paul should do as best he can to make people understand that if this stuff doesn't pass it is the fault of congress, not him.
His biggest hurtle will be congress. Without using the executive orders, which he despises, the best he can really do is propose ideas to congress and campaign for the ideas. Gain public support and whatnot. It's not really his job to do that, but it's not a problem as long as he doesn't sign anything into law, which can be done by executive order. Paul's core voters, the real libertarians, know that his "promises" depend on congress in order to happen. The rest of them, well, they might end up disappointed in the first 4 years. Paul should do as best he can to make people understand that if this stuff doesn't pass it is the fault of congress, not him.
- 5,812
- shmogt
Ya exactly. He hasn't changed and has had the same plan forever, but when it comes to executing it there is tons of people and laws in his way. It will become a world issue too since he's planning on cutting off a lot of countries money help and pulling troops from them. Who knows how everyone will react. His intentions seem to be in the right place, but a lot of stuff will be against him.
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
But since the government is inanimate it is more like a remote control pitbull. The problem is the people operating the controller are corrupt, not the thing being operated. Being in the US Congress has way too many personal benefits and they can hold office for way too long. Take that stuff away and there will be negligible corruption.
Besides I like pitbulls (see my profile pic
). I've never seen an unwarranted aggressive act by a pitbull towards a human, but I've been on the receiving end of a little dog being aggressive for no reason. And pitbulls can do a lot more than a Chihuahua, not only physically but acting as a deterrent also. And they're better hunters, protectors/fighters... pretty much everything except fitting in small areas.
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
I can't believe it. I saw it just this morning. The local Fox 19 affiliate here in Cincy has produced what is probably the most unbiased and informative political piece that I have ever seen on any Fox station. Ben Swann is my new local tv hero. 
I wonder if the heads at fox have decided to cut the other networks off at the pass by jumping on the RP bandwagon now instead of pushing another flavor of the month candidate, or if Ben Swann is personally responsible for the 'Reality Check'. Either way, it's good to finally hear this type of honesty about the subject on network TV.
I wonder if the heads at fox have decided to cut the other networks off at the pass by jumping on the RP bandwagon now instead of pushing another flavor of the month candidate, or if Ben Swann is personally responsible for the 'Reality Check'. Either way, it's good to finally hear this type of honesty about the subject on network TV.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
