Warning this is vaguely creepy.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

That's pathetic.

Screw the 22nd amendment!

edit:
Check out the source for the website. This is in the HTML comments:
<!-- .:/+osssyssso+/:. ./osyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyso/- ./syyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys/. .+syyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyys+. `/syyyyyyyyyyysssooooosssyyyyyyyyyyys/ `oyyyyyyyyyyso/-`` `-:osyyyyyyyyyyo. `oyyyyyyyyys/. ./syyyyyyyyys. oyyyyyyyyyo. .+yyyyyyyyyo` -yyyyyyyyyo` `+yyyyyyyyy: oyyyyyyyys. `syyyyyyyys syyyyyyyyo +yyyyyyyyy syyyyyyyyo```.....----------....```+syyyyyyyy osssssssssoossssssssssssssssssooooossssssssss -sssssssssssoo+//::--...```````````..--://+o: ossso+/:-.`` ....-----------... `/-`` `.--:/+oooosssssssssssssssssso. `.:/+ossssssssssssssoo++///:::-----. `/ossssssssssso+/:-.```` ``.--:. .+sssssso/:.` .-:/+ossssso- ./o/-` `-:+ossssssssss+. `-/ossssssssssss+-` :+osssssssoo+:-` -->
...creeeeeepy.

edit: can't spoiler code tags.

Julia was slim... was that surgery she got at 23 a fething lap band?

Ahhh... a president for life!

I don't mind interesting campaign stuff (this is my sport, I WANT FIREWORKS YEA BABY). This is just...creepy on on many levels to me.

Frazzled wrote:I don't mind interesting campaign stuff (this is my sport, I WANT FIREWORKS YEA BABY). This is just...creepy on on many levels to me.

Julia can't do anything without government aid!

Amaya wrote:Julia can't do anything without government aid!

Well, looking at the slides it does appear Julia is both blind and dumb. Quite possibly deaf and unable to smell (or indeed breathe) as well, so it is no wonder she gets a lot of help from her Uncle Sam.

Frazzled wrote:I don't mind interesting campaign stuff (this is my sport, I WANT FIREWORKS YEA BABY). This is just...creepy on on many levels to me.

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, women are not a minority in the US. It's pretty stupid to ignore their interests.

Cradle to grave reliance on Obama, er ok. but he's not a socialist right Weird graphics that creep me out, er ok. Weird thanks to Dear Leader everything is ok ignoring Julia, our econmic system, and the duties of those taxpayers. Its all thanks to Dear Leader, er Obama.

Look now Jr. can go to school thanks to Dear Leader..er Obama. Without Dear Leader, Jr. would be an uneducated pig (funny I remember paying taxe for that at the local level).

Look now there are balms fore the sick and aged thanks to Dear Leader er Obama. Romney wants you to get the plague.

Look now that she's under Dear Leader Julia has a baby...er wait that doesn't sound right ; )

Look under Dear Leader when Julia is old she gets Medicare (wait didn't that get voted in the 60s and didn't Obamacare cut $500Bn from Medicare...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

Look under Dear Leader USA is BEST USA!

I think this is appropriate.

Oh great, more "Obama's a communist" nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean, women are not a minority in the US. It's pretty stupid to ignore their interests.

As far as population goes, but politically speaking, yeah, we're still a minority.

Melissia wrote:Oh great, more "Obama's a communist" nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean, women are not a minority in the US. It's pretty stupid to ignore their interests.

As far as population goes, but politically speaking, yeah, we're still a minority.

Probably because you have extreme right wing Mormon and Christian woman who are convinced that they should do whatever their husband tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves.

Frazzled wrote:Cradle to grave reliance on Obama, er ok. but he's not a socialist right Weird graphics that creep me out, er ok. Weird thanks to Dear Leader everything is ok ignoring Julia, our econmic system, and the duties of those taxpayers. Its all thanks to Dear Leader, er Obama.

Look now Jr. can go to school thanks to Dear Leader..er Obama. Without Dear Leader, Jr. would be an uneducated pig (funny I remember paying taxe for that at the local level).

Look now there are balms fore the sick and aged thanks to Dear Leader er Obama. Romney wants you to get the plague.

Look now that she's under Dear Leader Julia has a baby...er wait that doesn't sound right ; )

Look under Dear Leader when Julia is old she gets Medicare (wait didn't that get voted in the 60s and didn't Obamacare cut $500Bn from Medicare...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

Look under Dear Leader USA is BEST USA!

Frazzled, a politician saying they're great and want to help people doesn't make them a communist dictator. Under your crazy logic, George Bush, Ronnie Reagan and George Washington are all communist dictators. All politicians talk about how great they are and how everyone is screwed without them.

I think it's more of an issue that the Life of Julia suggest that Julia can not succeed without Obama holding her hand and if you elect Romney she'll become a coke addicted adult film star.

Amaya wrote:I think it's more of an issue that the Life of Julia suggest that Julia can not succeed without Obama holding her hand and if you elect Romney she'll become a coke addicted adult film star.

If that's how you want to interpret it. All this seemed to indicated was that Julia would be a lot better off under Obama's policies than she would be under Romney's. And so far I'm only see a lot of name-calling rather than actual arguments to the contrary.

Indeed, it goes to show just how much her benefits would decrease under Romney's stated plans, not that she would be unable to make it. Her life would be much worse because her benefits would be cut by a huge amount.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hazardous Harry wrote:And so far I'm only see a lot of name-calling rather than actual arguments to the contrary.

They don't have any arguments to the contrary.

So, chart shows women at several stages of life or circumstance can benefit from Obama's initiatives and you are telling me Obama is trying to claim lifetime control of the country... oh and that fething tired, trite and strawman horsegak about communism again. Your democratic party isn't communist, it isn't even socialist, it wasn't under Clinton and it isn't under Obama.

The insinuations here are painfully threadbare and reek of desperation.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:And so far I'm only see a lot of name-calling rather than actual arguments to the contrary.

They don't have any arguments to the contrary.

That's usually the case. But usually they at least try to pretend at having one in the first place.

1. Does Head Start actually work? Can you even push the average 4-5 year old to learn significantly faster? The whole program is insane, are we seriously prepping children for Kindergarten?

2. Does Race to the Top work?

3. Helping students get through college is good the economy as individuals with a degree are typically more productive. If there isn't already, there should be minimum standards for receiving such benefits and failing classes should require the money to be payed back.

4. Surgery for what? Too vague. Not a fan of government health care.

5. Fair Pay Act. Yes, I support equal pay and if Romney doesn't then he's a prick. Depends on what was actually on the act though.

6. Iffy on this one, because I don't know what current rate of interest on student loans is and where it would be if doubled.

7. If women statistically have more medical problems then they should be charged more than men. Businesses should not be forced to supply birth control.

8. Who's paying for all this free health care?

9. Increased funding has not lead to improved performance by students.

10. Is this a government loan? If so, don't banks give out small business loans?

11. Yeah, Medicare so you can get a bunch of pills you don't need. I wonder how much money is wasted on the cholesterol scam.

12. If there is any money left in Social Security...

Trying to point out how women at various stages of life are better off under Obama policies than Romney policies seems like an obvious and mundane move to me. Maybe it's weird for some folks born in the cretaceous or the Bible belt to see a politician trying to appeal to women.

Amaya wrote:1. Does Head Start actually work? Can you even push the average 4-5 year old to learn significantly faster? The whole program is insane, are we seriously prepping children for Kindergarten?

You could have stopped right here if you were just trying to demonstrate that you don't know anything about the subject and aren't going to take the time to remedy that.

Yea head start works wonders. My daughter is in it, my son was in it, and they show HUGE improvements over the children around their ages that didnt join a headstart program. So yes.....yes it works.

Such a weird thread title...

it's a typical campaign add (with flashy graphics) that will, of course, change no one's mind here at Dakka. It validates the beliefs that those who already support Obama hold, and confirms the beliefs that those who oppose Obama hold as well.

The biggest issue I have is how are we going to PAY for all of this?

Sigh, I like Obama, but the mud-slinging about how voting Republican will cause Julie to have no life and pretty much grow up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard is just stupid. -1 point for Obama. Of course, he probably didn't actually have a hand in this campaign piece, which was probably done by one of his underlings-who deserves a serious smack across the face. Keep your pimp-rident hand strong, and all that jazz.

Where's the mud slinging, timetowaste? Nothing in the Julia stuff says "voting Republican will cause Julie to have no life and pretty much grow up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard ". Where are you getting that from?

They said what they would do to help her, and said Mitt would not do those things or would cut funding to them, allowing those programs to help fewer people. Kingcracker has just attested personally to the benefits of Head Start. If Mitt wants to cut funding for that, and fewer kids to benefit, is that not a relevant consideration to voters who are parents?

Instead we've got Fraz calling him a communist, but according to you the Dems are the ones slinging mud?

timetowaste85 wrote:Sigh, I like Obama, but the mud-slinging about how voting Republican will cause Julie to have no life and pretty much grow up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard is just stupid

... err, the site didnt' actually say that.

It said:

RE: the Head Start program

The Romney/Ryan budget could cut programs like Head Start by 20%, meaning the program would offer 200,000 fewer slots per year.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying she'd have far less of a chance to benefit from this program. Which is true.



RE: public education

The Romney/Ryan budget would cut funding for public education to pay for tax cuts for millionaires.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that her public school would have less government funding. Which is true.



RE: federal financial aid

The American Opportunity Tax Credit would be allowed to expire, and Pell Grant funding would be slashed for 10 million students.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that she'd be less likely to get financial aid for college, and get less of it if she did. Which is true.



RE: health care

Health care reform would be repealed-- Romney says he'd "kill it dead".

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that she'd not be covered by her parents' health insurance because of Romney's repeals, forcing her to have to pay for it some other way or just not have the surgery at all. Which is true.



RE: equal pay for women

Romney has refused to say whether he would have vetoed or signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that Romney is not taking a stance on allowing women to fight to have equal pay for equal work. Which is true.



RE: Student loan debt

Under the Romney/Ryan budget, interest rates on federal student loans would be allowed to double, affecting Julia and 7.4 million other students.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that Romney's plan would cause more financial hardship for any student that has to take a loan compared to Obama's plan. Which is true.



RE: Health care insurance.

Romney supports the Blunt Amendment—which would place Julia's health care decisions in the hands of her employer—and repealing health care reform so insurance companies could go back to charging women 50% more than men.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that Romney's plan would severely disadvantage her in trying to find affordable health care. Which is true.



RE: insurance reforms for maternal care

Under President Obama: Julia decides to have a child. Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.

Under Mitt Romney: Health care reform would be repealed.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that Romney would slash health care, thus increasing the cost of pregnancy or making pregnancy itself riskier for the health of the mother depending on what she can afford. Which is true.



RE: federal funding for public schools.

The Romney/Ryan budget could force steep cuts in federal funding for schools in all 50 states.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that Romney's cuts would lower the amount that public schools receive for the government, which would have a negative effect on the school her child would go to. Which is true.



RE: small business administration and other small business assistance programs

The Romney/Ryan budget could cut programs like the Small Business Administration by 20%.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that if she decides to become an entrepreneur during Romney's administration, she'd have far less assistance in starting up her own company than under the Obama administration.. Which is true.



RE: medicare

Medicare could end as we know it, leaving Julia with nothing but a voucher to buy insurance coverage, which means $6,350 extra per year for a similar plan.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that Romney and the Republican party would like to end Medicare and replace it with vouchers to buy insurance coverage, which combined with the repeal to insurance reform would cost her on average $6000 per year just to get similar coverage to what medicare gives out now. Which is arguable perhaps, but I think it leans closer to the truth than not.



RE: social security

Julia's benefits could be cut by 40%.

Certainly he isn't saying they're growing up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard here. That's just how the Republican trolls are interpreting it, because they don't want to stand up to face the truth about how the budget cuts effect Americans. It IS saying that her social security payments could be cut nearly in half under the Romney plan, forcing her to save up more or work to a later time in life. Which is true.



And Romney's plan isn't even a properly balanced budget, for reference. One can argue that these benefits that Obama's plan aren't worth the cost, but arguing that he's wrong to point out that people will benefit from them is stupid and beneath the level of intellectual debate on this forum. Which is a rather low level to begin with...

What's this? The Democratic candidate supports reproductive rights, social programs & government assistance? AND They're using this as selling point to female voters!?!? Dear lord, this is most shocking news I've ever heard.

I mean gak. Next you're going to tell me the republicans are going to try and attract votes from businessmen by advocating for lower taxes and deregulation. I don't think my frail heart could take it.

Amaya wrote:I think it's more of an issue that the Life of Julia suggest that Julia can not succeed without Obama holding her hand and if you elect Romney she'll become a coke addicted adult film star.

No it doesn't, most of that is you adding information of your own.

The argument presented by the site is based on the notion that, under Obama, women will be better off than they are under Romney. That doesn't imply that women cannot succeed without Obama, or that Romney wants to systematically eliminate all opportunities for women such that they'll become drug addicted adult film stars.

Mannahnin wrote:Where's the mud slinging, timetowaste? Nothing in the Julia stuff says "voting Republican will cause Julie to have no life and pretty much grow up in a gutter eating rat-gizzard ". Where are you getting that from?

They said what they would do to help her, and said Mitt would not do those things or would cut funding to them, allowing those programs to help fewer people. Kingcracker has just attested personally to the benefits of Head Start. If Mitt wants to cut funding for that, and fewer kids to benefit, is that not a relevant consideration to voters who are parents?

Instead we've got Fraz calling him a communist, but according to you the Dems are the ones slinging mud?

Mannahnin wrote:Trying to point out how women at various stages of life are better off under Obama policies than Romney policies seems like an obvious and mundane move to me. Maybe it's weird for some folks born in the cretaceous or the Bible belt to see a politician trying to appeal to women.

Amaya wrote:1. Does Head Start actually work? Can you even push the average 4-5 year old to learn significantly faster? The whole program is insane, are we seriously prepping children for Kindergarten?

You could have stopped right here if you were just trying to demonstrate that you don't know anything about the subject and aren't going to take the time to remedy that.

Maybe you should follow your own rules. Where is the evidence other than KingCracker's claim (not that I doubt it) that Headstart actually works? If you can provide facts I will consider that it could be worthwhile. Otherwise, you're contributing anything by saying, "You're stupid."

Amaya wrote:Where is the evidence other than KingCracker's claim (not that I doubt it) that Headstart actually works? If you can provide facts I will consider that it could be worthwhile. Otherwise, you're contributing anything by saying, "You're stupid."

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can read up on Head Start with a few minutes googling if you care. If you don't care, why ask us to do your research for you? If you don't doubt Kingcracker's word, then why cop an attitude about it? I don't expect you to be interested in or educated about early childhood education, but you can look into it if you care to. Dumping the burden of responsibility on us to inform you is lazy.

The cretaceous was a nod to Fraz. Hence the smiley.

And I was obviously asking timetowaste where the Dems were slinging mud in the Julia campaign. Which they clearly weren't.

Amaya wrote:
Maybe you should follow your own rules. Where is the evidence other than KingCracker's claim (not that I doubt it) that Headstart actually works?

The US Department of Health did this study in 2011. It basically concludes that Head Start provides notable benefits for certain population groups, and that further research is necessary to determine the exact effect (the study only tracked children through 1st grade).

Mannahnin wrote:I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can read up on Head Start with a few minutes googling if you care. If you don't care, why ask us to do your research for you? If you don't doubt Kingcracker's word, then why cop an attitude about it?

The cretaceous was a nod to Fraz. Hence the smiley.

Even though searching does Head Start work yields results claiming it does and doesn't work.

DHS Study 2011

"The report sums up the findings as follows: “Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade, a potentially important finding for children’s longer term development.”"

There is an article in Time saying Head Start should be cut.

There is a phenomenon known as the "Head Start Fade" that shows a significant loss of benefits from HS by 2nd or 3rd grade.

A Congressional study shows that it has greater benefits for 3 year olds, reduced benefits for 4 year olds, and the durability of such benefits was not assessed.

So, from what I gather, this is a feel good program that produces temporary and short lived results. So no, it doesn't work and instead of insulting people you should actually contribute to the discussion instead of claiming that others are ignorant because they disagree with your views. Also, automatically suggesting that someone didn't do cursory research whatsoever is extremely insulting and uncalled for.

Edit: Also, it was launched in 1964 and early Head Start was established in 1994. Why is there no long term evidence for or against the program?

I didn't call you ignorant for disagreeing. Please read your own posts. Said you were ignorant because you openly admitted ignorance and expected other people to explain a very well-known national educational program to you. You made clear in your post that you hadn't done any research, so there's clearly no insult.

Mannahnin wrote:I didn't call you ignorant for disagreeing. Please read your own posts. Said you were ignorant because you openly admitted ignorance and expected other people to explain a very well-known national educational program to you. You made clear in your post that you hadn't done any research, so there's clearly no insult.

Wait, how is the following suggestive of any of that.

1. Does Head Start actually work? Can you even push the average 4-5 year old to learn significantly faster? The whole program is insane, are we seriously prepping children for Kindergarten?

There is a debate to whether or not it actually works. There is data that supports a temporary benefit, but not lasting results.
Which leads to the question, can you push the average 4-5 year old to learn significantly faster? Well, if it only produces minor to moderate temporary results, the answer is no.
If there are no lasting benefits past 2nd or 3rd grade then the program is 'insane' and a waste of resources.


Instead of refuting anything I've posted, you shout "ignorance" and run off.

Here's my problem:

I thought the Obama campaign was run by geeks? Don't they
understand that changing one event of Julia's life changes all
other events in Julia's life, both past and present? I'm not sure
if I can trust a campaign of self-proclaimed smart people who
do with less than anything but a branching set of timelines to
represent the multiverse.

You asked if it worked, indicating you knew nothing about it.

You asked incredulously whether you can get a 4-5 year old to learn faster, making obvious that you're not familiar with early childhood development or education.

You called the program "insane", which was the point at which you made yourself look hyperbolic, strident, and aggressive, as opposed to interested in learning.

The unwillingness to take a few minutes to google, combined with the "insane" bit, is where you made clear that it was not worth trying to sell you on the program, as you weren't interested. Now that I've shamed you into it you've troubled yourself to spend a few minutes with google to reinforce your preconceptions and come to some clearly well-founded conclusions.

And you're taking offense at me calling you out on it a little?

Shamed me into researching it?

Why don't you refute the studies that claim it doesn't work and is a failure and instead of being self righteous and rude.

Amaya, I think you misunderstand what head start is and even the article you quoted. It is not an inoculation; it is a program intended to prepare young children for the rigors of formal education. You don't learn your ABCs and then suddenly forget them in 2nd or 3rd grade.

What DHS is referring to as far as a "fade" goes is that the early benefit is being diluted as it is unsupported in later grades. Rather than an issue with Head Start, the fault lies in not continuing to build upon those early gains.

The Congressional study you pointed to actually espouses the benefits of Head Start in that the earlier a child enters the educational process, the greater the benefit. Later years were not assessed because, well, Head Start stops when the child enters Kindergarten, as it is intended to.

Edit:
More information:
http://www.nhsa.org/files/static_page_files/48BB25A9-1D09-3519-ADE92FA32402B1FC/Head_Start_Works_by_YSV.pdf

As an educator, I have yet to find another person in my field that does not believe in Head Start.

agnosto wrote:Amaya, I think you misunderstand what head start is and even the article you quoted. It is not an inoculation; it is a program intended to prepare young children for the rigors of formal education. You don't learn your ABCs and then suddenly forget them in 2nd or 3rd grade.

What DHS is referring to as far as a "fade" goes is that the early benefit is being diluted as it is unsupported in later grades. Rather than an issue with Head Start, the fault lies in not continuing to build upon those early gains.

The Congressional study you pointed to actually espouses the benefits of Head Start in that the earlier a child enters the educational process, the greater the benefit. Later years were not assessed because, well, Head Start stops when the child enters Kindergarten, as it is intended to.

No, I'm not misunderstanding it. The fade works as such, by a 2nd or 3rd grade there is no longer a statistically significant improvement for children who attended Head Start over those who didn't.

Does that mean they aren't building on earlier gains or that children who didn't go through the program can learn quickly enough to catch up with those who did?

There are two sides to every story. I recommend you read the letter in the link I provided above.

I'm surprised you have a problem with other education programs like Race to the Top; doesn't it make sense to get away from the "welfare mentality" of doling out money to states without actually expecting results? A competitive grant system is a refreshing approach after NCLB flowed down the drain.

Amaya wrote:
There is an article in Time saying Head Start should be cut.

An article was published in a popular magazine!?

Quickly, we must heed its advice before its too late!

Amaya wrote:
There is a phenomenon known as the "Head Start Fade" that shows a significant loss of benefits from HS by 2nd or 3rd grade.

The existence of which is disputed.

Amaya wrote:
Why is there no long term evidence for or against the program?

No one paid for the relevant studies to be done. That type of research is extremely expensive, and also faces hurdles regarding subject participation.

Here's the link to the actual Impact Study; you'll note that the individuals involved actually admitted to difficulties and issues with the final report (page iii):
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_summary_final.pdf

agnosto wrote:There are two sides to every story. I recommend you read the letter in the link I provided above.

I'm surprised you have a problem with other education programs like Race to the Top; doesn't it make sense to get away from the "welfare mentality" of doling out money to states without actually expecting results? A competitive grant system is a refreshing approach after NCLB flowed down the drain.

As with all political issues, there are multiple claims for and against any given program. This includes Head Start and Race to the Top, which is why I asked if they work?

Because I can go search X is a failure/X is a success and get tons of hits for both each claiming the other is wrong.


I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

There are simply too many variables in education to absolutely state that Xprogram is a success while Yprogram is a failure. Unfortunately, human experiences, aptitudes and any number of other variables all attribute to a child's success (or not). I've been involved in the field for more than 15 years as a teacher and administrator, have read countless books, studies and attended even more training sessions and conferences and have yet to find the panacea method that will ensure the success of all children.

My personal belief, based upon real-life experience is that Head Start works. That doesn't mean that Mom can drop little Johnny off at the center and he'll magically be transformed into a straight-A student throughout his life. It's one tool in a very large tool chest.

Personally, and this comes from having taught in classrooms in S. Korea, Japan and the U.S., the biggest impact on a child's education is parent involvement. The biggest reason for programs like Head Start and Title I, Part A to exist at all is that children from low-income backgrounds are statistical poor performers and this all plays into socio-economic issues that have no obvious correlation to education but still effect it.

I really appreciate your contributions to this discussion.

I think that the biggest factors in a student's success are parent involvement, cultural value of education, and classroom discipline. I also think that college isn't for everyone and that there should be more encouragement for students to look into becoming apprentices in various trades instead of a near universal push to get everyone to college.

Amaya wrote:I think that the biggest factors in a student's success are parent involvement, cultural value of education, and classroom discipline. I also think that college isn't for everyone and that there should be more encouragement for students to look into becoming apprentices in various trades instead of a near universal push to get everyone to college.

The apprenticeship thing brings up an interesting story I hear on NPR. Apparently the trade apprentice system is alive and well in Germany.
In my state, vocational technology training is free (depending on income) until 21 years of age.

One of the biggest failings in the education system that I have seen is a lack of career guidance. The sad fact is that most schools use their counseling staff as test administrators more than actually providing guidance and counseling services.

Yes! Testing has gotten completely out of hand. I don't know about other states, but the obsession with the TAKs test is absurd. Everything is taught around passing the stupid test. I also agree with the lack of career guidance, I had no idea what I wanted to major in getting out of high school, all I knew was that I was expected to go to college.

In the UK we start formal education at least a year before you do in the states and we dun lern gud.

It would be the same as teaching your children to read and write (and maybe even do some maths) before they went to school - they'd have a huge advantage over other children whose parents had not taught them to read and write before they started school, and they'd be able to concentrate on other aspects of schooling (such as gaining factual knowledge or improving skills, rather than trying to learn to read and write from scratch).

Bottom line... scare tactics work, and is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. In my mind, that's all this is.

GG

Amaya wrote:
I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

You have had a statement, in this thread, from a parent who confirmed it worked. You would rather hear statistical evidence/media citation yet when presented with such, will immediately go looking for another partisan statement elsewhere that says otherwise.

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. We can send cameras into space and people will still cross their arms, call it a guvmunt conspiracy and insist that it's not enough evidence the earth isn't flat. We can pull rock up out of the earth and test it to prove it's a couple of million years old and some folks will insist it's a lie from satan. You are one of those people, you already have such a preset partisan slant on everything that might be presented to you that the only reason you are demanding 'evidence' is so that you can try and assault anything presented.

That is trolling. That is close minded. That is being small.

That others might care to continue to indulge you in discourse over this and any other political debate, when you are so utterly and totally set to one belief and point of view, speaks far greater of their patience than your actual willingness to alter your position. I think they are wasting their time.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. We can send cameras into space and people will still cross their arms, call it a guvmunt conspiracy and insist that it's not enough evidence the earth isn't flat. We can pull rock up out of the earth and test it to prove it's a couple of million years old and some folks will insist it's a lie from satan. You are one of those people, you already have such a preset partisan slant on everything that might be presented to you that the only reason you are demanding 'evidence' is so that you can try and assault anything presented.

Too true.

Anything is refutable if you want it refuted. 35% of Americans think that Jesus rode to school on a dinosaur.

Really, the Romney counter should be pretty easy.

"This is Julia, she's 23, and she has a job.

Under Obama, she wouldn't."

Repeat at 27 and 42.

"This is Julia, she's 65, and is now eligible for Medicare and Social Security.

Under Obama, these programs would have been gone."

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Amaya wrote:
I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

You have had a statement, in this thread, from a parent who confirmed it worked. You would rather hear statistical evidence/media citation yet when presented with such, will immediately go looking for another partisan statement elsewhere that says otherwise.

Really, I should rely on a single individual's experiences to justify Head Start? Are you serious?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Amaya wrote:
I don't have anything against spending money on education, hell I would support more spending, if there is irrefutable evidence that it works and has a positive long term effect.

There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. We can send cameras into space and people will still cross their arms, call it a guvmunt conspiracy and insist that it's not enough evidence the earth isn't flat. We can pull rock up out of the earth and test it to prove it's a couple of million years old and some folks will insist it's a lie from satan. You are one of those people, you already have such a preset partisan slant on everything that might be presented to you that the only reason you are demanding 'evidence' is so that you can try and assault anything presented.

That is trolling. That is close minded. That is being small.

That's really cute. You are such a great intellectual giant. I am utterly in awe of your flawless argument and superior intellect.


Of course there are people who will refuse to believe anything, no matter how great the factual support for it. The funny thing is, Head Start doesn't have that. There are no proven lasting benefits and any gains from it are described as moderate to begin with and are minimized by 2nd or 3rd grade. Hell, according to the study it showed reduced math skills in children who had gone through Head Start. At best the program offers minimal gains, at worst it offers temporary benefits that are not improved upon because of America's poor public school system.

Frazzled wrote:Cradle to grave reliance on Obama, er ok. but he's not a socialist right

...

Better that than to rely on men. We don't have a good historical track record for looking after women's interests. And they certainly can't turn to Republicans.

biccat wrote:Really, the Romney counter should be pretty easy.

"This is Julia, she's 23, and she has a job.

Under Obama, she wouldn't."

Repeat at 27 and 42.

That's a much more difficult argument to make since it doesn't turn on specific policy outcomes. Sure, jobs might follow from Romney's policies, but healthcare coverage will follow from Obama's.

biccat wrote:
"This is Julia, she's 65, and is now eligible for Medicare and Social Security.

Under Obama, these programs would have been gone."

Romney voiced support for Ryan's proposal regarding Medicare, which would make such an argument very difficult to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
It would be the same as teaching your children to read and write (and maybe even do some maths) before they went to school - they'd have a huge advantage over other children whose parents had not taught them to read and write before they started school, and they'd be able to concentrate on other aspects of schooling (such as gaining factual knowledge or improving skills, rather than trying to learn to read and write from scratch).

Unfortunately, at least in the US, often times that opportunity isn't available due to the absence of accelerated courses prior to high school (and even then they're often rare). If you go to public school, generally you are held to the standards of the districts lowest common denominator at any given grade level, with obvious exceptions for learning and behavioral disabilities.

Not that learning to read, write, and do math before going to school isn't good, it just isn't necessarily as big an advantage as you might think. Further, it can have the effect of inculcating children with a sort of "coasting" mentality due to the ease with which they complete their assigned work.

Either way, the Finnish and South Koreans make us all look stupid.

biccat wrote:Really, the Romney counter should be pretty easy.

"This is Julia, she's 23, and she has a job.

Under Obama, she wouldn't."

Repeat at 27 and 42.

Prove it.

Unlike the website's statements, this is nothing more than conjecture based on a biased viewpoint, not actual facts. So proving it will be impossible, but I will enjoy watching you fail.

generalgrog wrote:Bottom line... scare tactics work, and is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. In my mind, that's all this is.

So stating provable facts is now "scare tactics"? What nonsense.

Melissia wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Bottom line... scare tactics work, and is one of the oldest political tricks in the book. In my mind, that's all this is.

So stating provable facts is now "scare tactics"? What nonsense.

Hey, reality scares republicans. It has a proven liberal bias.

You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women, even though the only things in the story that would solely affect women are fair pay and birth control (even though that sort of helps men as well).

The only issues are whether or not the programs work and do their benefits outweigh the costs, should employers be required to supply birth control, and who is paying for all of this?

There are some people who are extremely anti government and live in constant fear of it growing, but the government is a necessity and as the economy grows so will the government.

Ok, Lets not supply birth control, and have more people with kids that are a drain on society.

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women, even though the only things in the story that would solely affect women are fair pay and birth control (even though that sort of helps men as well).

The only issues are whether or not the programs work and do their benefits outweigh the costs, should employers be required to supply birth control, and who is paying for all of this?

There are some people who are extremely anti government and live in constant fear of it growing, but the government is a necessity and as the economy grows so will the government.

Sadly they will.

The Republican party is split sadly.

This a repeat of the 1914 Elections.

I have read history and sadly the comment of history likes to repeat itself is quite ripe. While the media is focusing on the republicans. The Democratic party is taking all the electoral votes. Those matter more than a popular vote count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, Lets not supply birth control, and have more people with kids that are a drain on society.

Basically. If we have romney that is.

Melissia wrote:So stating provable facts is now "scare tactics"? What nonsense.

This verges on scare tactics in the sense that it is meant as cautionary with respect to Romney's take on Obama's policies, but given that understanding of "scare tactics" basically all political campaigning is some variation of it.

More obvious forms of scare tactics tend to manifest themselves in the way the whole "death panels" thing did.

The death panels will be held on swiftboats.

Asherian Command wrote:The Democratic party is taking all the electoral votes. Those matter more than a popular vote count.

We'll see. Nationally its a dead heat, in many ways this is likely to look like the 2004 election.

Asherian Command wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women, even though the only things in the story that would solely affect women are fair pay and birth control (even though that sort of helps men as well).

The only issues are whether or not the programs work and do their benefits outweigh the costs, should employers be required to supply birth control, and who is paying for all of this?

There are some people who are extremely anti government and live in constant fear of it growing, but the government is a necessity and as the economy grows so will the government.

Sadly they will.

The Republican party is split sadly.

This a repeat of the 1914 Elections.

I have read history and sadly the comment of history likes to repeat itself is quite ripe. While the media is focusing on the republicans. The Democratic party is taking all the electoral votes. Those matter more than a popular vote count.

Oh, people will certainly stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality. That's what happens when people vote based on their gut feelings and party lines.

Asherian Command wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, Lets not supply birth control, and have more people with kids that are a drain on society.

Basically. If we have romney that is.

I thought that was the other guy, who attacked Romney for not supporting a bill to let bible beaters ban contraception.

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh great, more "Obama's a communist" nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean, women are not a minority in the US. It's pretty stupid to ignore their interests.

As far as population goes, but politically speaking, yeah, we're still a minority.

Probably because you have extreme right wing Mormon and Christian woman who are convinced that they should do whatever their husband tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves.

And none of that is the fault of crazy right wing mormon and christian men who think women should do whatever their husbands tell them to do instead of thinking for themselves?

If a woman was raised in a family like what you describe and didn't get to go to college and experience any other way of life then how is she meant to have been able to get the confidence or experience to make her own decisions?

Could someone explain what the Headstart program encompasses. Is it stuff like reading, basic literacy and numeracy, stuff like that?

When did I even imply that?

Amaya wrote:When did I even imply that?

Probably because you have extreme right wing Mormon and Christian woman who are convinced that they should do whatever their husband tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves.

Your language suggests blame on one sex, as opposed to the influence of both. It is often a dominating male figure (be it a father, husband, minister etc.) who installs these views into women.

A better way to put it would be to say "You have extreme right wing mormon and christian people who are convinced that women should do whatever their husband tells them to do."

There are women who have the option to escape such a life, but refuse to do so, and women who are essentially imprisoned by males and forced into a life of servitude.

You can put blame on both genders.

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women

Yes I can. And I have! Wha'cha gonna do about it? One can argue that it isn' worth the cost, but the benefits are there to be seen whether you live in denial of them or not.

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women

Yes I can. And I have! Wha'cha gonna do about it? One can argue that it isn' worth the cost, but the benefits are there to be seen whether you live in denial of them or not.

Not sure if serious...

I'm referring specifically to the benefits in Life of Julia btw.

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women

Yes I can. And I have! Wha'cha gonna do about it? One can argue that it isn' worth the cost, but the benefits are there to be seen whether you live in denial of them or not.

Not sure if serious...

I'm referring specifically to the benefits in Life of Julia btw.

I was quite serious, and I was also referring to the things which the Life of Julia page mentioned.

I don't know why this is so surprising that government programs which reach out to the disadvantaged also reach out to the disadvantaged.

I'm saying that Obama's programs are aimed at creating benefits for everyone, so arguing otherwise is pointless, even though many people do so.

Whether or not they are cost effective is an entirely other issue and the biggest issue I have with them.

Amaya wrote:

Really, I should rely on a single individual's experiences to justify Head Start? Are you serious?

No, I suggested that actual anecdotal evidence from a parent posting in this thread was a lot more real than a cold stat you grabbed somewhere being manipulated to produce a result you wanted to portray.
Guess what, I asked 100 students if they were in favor of the brutal and ineffective method of hunting foxes with hounds and 99 said no, I then asked 100 students if they were in favor of pest control and 70 said yes. Any stat can be produced to support any point of view, given enough spin and prejudice and you've got both in swathes, as your amusing pictures on page one of this thread have adequately qualified.

Amaya wrote:

You are such a great intellectual giant. I am utterly in awe of your flawless argument and superior intellect.

First sensible thing you've come up with.
Well, keep at it young man, despite your considerably shorter time on the planet and limited life experience as a student, I'm sure adult and mature discourse is drawing every closer to your grasp! (see, I can do patronising sarcasm as well, also, I've had many more years to do it and I'm British... we bleed vitriol and piss pure wit )

Amaya wrote:
Of course there are people who will refuse to believe anything, no matter how great the factual support for it. The funny thing is, Head Start doesn't have that. There are no proven lasting benefits and any gains from it are described as moderate to begin with and are minimized by 2nd or 3rd grade. Hell, according to the study it showed reduced math skills in children who had gone through Head Start. At best the program offers minimal gains, at worst it offers temporary benefits that are not improved upon because of America's poor public school system.

So... We could also work to improve the public school system as well... ? Just a wild mad idea, but actively trying to improve the educational chances and futures of children should:
A) be a work in progress and subject to constant revision and improvement.
B) be widened to incorporate the public school system over years.
C) be considered a very noble cause that we, as citizens of a morally judeo-christian society that espouses aiding and supporting others, would support the goals of.
D) be remembered that in every critical statement found, it did not bother to mention that those children then slipped back behind their peers, that there had been a leveling out, not a drop back below the averages.

A) It's been going on for 40 years with no great results.
B) If it isn't producing results, then it should be cut.
C) Not touching this one.
D) The point being not they slipped back below their peers, but that if the peers caught up, perhaps attempting to educate children at a younger age is perhaps, pointless?

I would argue that instead of putting effort into getting 3-4 year olds ready for school, we (Americans) should focus on bettering K-12. So instead of cutting it and moving the funding out of education, cut it and keep the funding in educational programs that are proven to work. However, IIRC, the funding for it is relatively small. I believe it was roughly 22,000 per child with roughly 900,000 to 1 million involved in the program.

Amaya wrote:A) It's been going on for 40 years with no great results.
B) If it isn't producing results, then it should be cut.

Why has it not been cut by successive Republican administrations?

Probably for fear of backlash. Who wants to be the guy (or gal) that cuts off funding for the education of the poor? Even if it isn't effective, the media poostorm would be enormous.

Well yes, of course there's a fear of backlash against removing successful programs to help children.

Melissia wrote:Well yes, of course there's a fear of backlash against removing successful programs to help children.

The problem with it is that it isn't successful. Whatever benefits it provides are short term and of no consequence by the time children are in middle school or American schools are so bad that any potential benefits from the program are prevented from occurring.

Read the study. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_summary_final.pdf

Amaya wrote:Whatever benefits it provides are short term and of no consequence by the time children are in middle school or American schools are so bad that any potential benefits from the program are prevented from occurring.

But it isn't the only source. Yes, that's a fun way to manipulate statistics, but I point out the conclusions here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1131110?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698972773987
Relevant quote:

The diminution of effects over time, especially for low-ability children, may reflect differences in quality of subsequent schooling or home environment.

Head Start provides benefits, but the rest of education must build on them.

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone

We can't? I'm sorry, but the fact is, they won't.

Obamanomics is a proven failure, and it's making the country worse off. Sure, as the country gets worse some groups might do better than others in the short term through redistribution, but as the wealth of the nation disappears it's going to hurt everyone.

You really can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone. Because they won't.

edit: I realize you may have been making that point, if so, you're right.

Other studies show the same thing.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1164270?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698972773987


And a 2005 study shows:

[...]recent
meta-analyses of longitudinal studies (Gorey,
2001; Nelson et al., 2003) suggest that effects
persist over time although there may be some
diminution of effects over the long term.
These findings are consistent with the work
done by Barnett, Young, and Schweinhart
(1998), who used causal modeling to show
that long-term effects of early childhood
education are built upon short-term effects.
[...].
Few studies have measured impacts on high
school graduation, but those with the largest
samples reported statistically significant posi-
tive impacts (Barnett, 1998).
[...]
Yet, it seems highly plausible that programs
such as Head Start lack the type of fund-
ing necessary to produce the levels of in-
tensity and quality achieved in better funded
model programs with the direct result that
they are less effective. Several studies provide
direct evidence in support of this argument
(Barnett, 1998).
[...]
Findings from the Abecedarian Project
show that the program produced large ini-
tial effects that persisted long after the inter-
vention ended (Campbell et al., 2001, 2002;
Campbell & Ramey, 1994, 1995). At the age
21 follow-up, Campbell et al. (2002) found
that program effects were strongest for young
adults who had taken part in the (5-year)
preschool phase of the intervention.

biccat wrote:Obamanomics is a proven failure

"Obamanomics" is something that exists only in your head.

biccat wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone

We can't? I'm sorry, but the fact is, they won't.

Obamanomics is a proven failure, and it's making the country worse off. Sure, as the country gets worse some groups might do better than others in the short term through redistribution, but as the wealth of the nation disappears it's going to hurt everyone.

You really can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone. Because they won't.

edit: I realize you may have been making that point, if so, you're right.

Obama is doing the same thing which brought your country out of the Great Depression, increasing public spending to counter less spending by the private sector. Back then people said that cuts were needed. When the government brought in cuts the economy spiralled downwards again. So history supports his method, not the republican one.

Here in the UK our government is going with the Khorne method (Slash/Maim/Burn) and do you know what has happened? Our economy has gone back into recession, instead of building upon the small growth that was happening whilst government spending was higher.

The economy has to get money from somewhere. In a recession the private sector cuts back to survive. If the government also cuts back then the economy collapses. No money moving around means no trading and no hope of growth.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Obama is doing the same thing which brought your country out of the Great Depression, increasing public spending to counter less spending by the private sector. Back then people said that cuts were needed. When the government brought in cuts the economy spiralled downwards again. So history supports his method, not the republican one.

The economy started to rebound shortly after the initial drop of the stock market. It wasn't until the "Keynesian" stimulus that the Great Depression actually hit.

Obama is doing the same thing which brought your country out of the Great Depression, increasing public spending to counter less spending by the private sector. Back then people said that cuts were needed. When the government brought in cuts the economy spiralled downwards again. So history supports his method, not the republican one.

Shh, you'll upset the republicans if you try to say we should learn from history.

People operate under the belief that the government had anything to do with ending the Great Depression?

People operate under the delusion that it didn't?

Amaya wrote:People operate under the belief that the government had anything to do with ending the Great Depression?

Well, considering the fact that what finally ended the Great Depression was World War 2 and you wouldn't have gone to a Total War economy without your government declaring war on Japan, Germany and Italy I'd say it had quite a lot to do with ending the Great Depression.

Well thanks to World War 2, we'll never know. Some theorists argue that the government prolonged it, others argue that alleviated the worst of the suffering, and some even claim that government intervention would have ended it eventually.

After the war Congress rejected Truman's proposal to enact FDR's postwar policies. Income tax rates and corporate taxes were reduced. The 'excess profits' tax was repealed. Postwar federal revenue was greater than revenue during the war, but this can be attributed to having millions of potential private sector employees in the military.

This thing actually made me like Romney more and Obama less...and I'm a Democrat But really, all the "negative" things against Romney seem to be budget cuts, which I'm all for. I don't like being in trillions of dollars of debt to China.

(Mostly) Republican policies (also moderate Dem) of reduced taxes and massive spending on war, combined with insufficient oversight and regulation of banks and mortgage companies, drove the economy into a ditch. Obama's policies have gradually been pulling us out of the ditch. It takes a while.

Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't. Not in the US. In the UK, where they have adopted austerity measures, they are now suffering a double-dip recession. This seems fairly indicative to me. We've got two different approaches side by side and two different results.

Amaya wrote:Well thanks to World War 2, we'll never know. Some theorists argue that the government prolonged it, others argue that alleviated the worst of the suffering, and some even claim that government intervention would have ended it eventually.

WWII was a massive government spending program, employing millions.

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't.

To be fair:

Not unlike David Berkowitz, Frazzled gets most of his information from canines. Not that I'd argue with a wiener dog, either.

biccat wrote:
The economy started to rebound shortly after the initial drop of the stock market. It wasn't until the "Keynesian" stimulus that the Great Depression actually hit.

Yeah, because if Herbert Hoover is famous for anything its the amount of faith his Administration placed in Keynesian economics.

Mannahnin wrote:(Mostly) Republican policies (also moderate Dem) of reduced taxes and massive spending on war, combined with insufficient oversight and regulation of banks and mortgage companies, drove the economy into a ditch. Obama's policies have gradually been pulling us out of the ditch. It takes a while.

Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't. Not in the US. In the UK, where they have adopted austerity measures, they are now suffering a double-dip recession. This seems fairly indicative to me. We've got two different approaches side by side and two different results.

Amaya wrote:Well thanks to World War 2, we'll never know. Some theorists argue that the government prolonged it, others argue that alleviated the worst of the suffering, and some even claim that government intervention would have ended it eventually.

WWII was a massive government spending program, employing millions.

Um, yeah? Are you suggesting someone said otherwise? It has no connection with FDRs policies though...

You nailed it on the head with issue concerning "insufficient oversight and regulations of banks and mortgage companies". They fracked up bad.

So you're saying that FDR, who was president during WWII, had nothing to do with WWII?

So you're saying that the claim FDR ended the Depression is connected to WW2 and not his policies?

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh great, more "Obama's a communist" nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean, women are not a minority in the US. It's pretty stupid to ignore their interests.

As far as population goes, but politically speaking, yeah, we're still a minority.

Probably because you have extreme right wing Mormon and Christian woman who are convinced that they should do whatever their husband tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves.

I wish She Who Must Be Obeyed would do what I told her, but then again by family tradition the males are always afraid the wives will run them over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Amaya wrote:Where is the evidence other than KingCracker's claim (not that I doubt it) that Headstart actually works? If you can provide facts I will consider that it could be worthwhile. Otherwise, you're contributing anything by saying, "You're stupid."

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you're ignorant. You can read up on Head Start with a few minutes googling if you care. If you don't care, why ask us to do your research for you? If you don't doubt Kingcracker's word, then why cop an attitude about it? I don't expect you to be interested in or educated about early childhood education, but you can look into it if you care to. Dumping the burden of responsibility on us to inform you is lazy.

The cretaceous was a nod to Fraz. Hence the smiley.

And I was obviously asking timetowaste where the Dems were slinging mud in the Julia campaign. Which they clearly weren't.

Head Start has very mixed results. Several studies show that by about 4th grade its a wash. The Wife's first job was with Head Start and is now really ambivalent about it. It could be helpful but often the parents are just crap, making it pretty irrelevant for the children who need it most. However, as policy Frazzled is all about maximum education. I properly run program is better than nothing for the kids thhat need it, no?

My issue with the ad is that its 1) creepy 2) reveals Obama's true cradle to grave ideal ala Europe. But frankly we've kicked Europe's ass economically since we started and continue to do so, even in our crapped out state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Cradle to grave reliance on Obama, er ok. but he's not a socialist right

...

Better that than to rely on men. We don't have a good historical track record for looking after women's interests. And they certainly can't turn to Republicans.

Rely on themselves. I for one welcome our new gynogifted overlords and their enlightened management of the Empire. All Hail Da Wimminz!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz predicted years ago that this was going to be a double-dip recesssion, but so far it hasn't.

To be fair:

Not unlike David Berkowitz, Frazzled gets most of his information from canines. Not that I'd argue with a wiener dog, either.

Wiener dogs make the best economists. If you disagree all your ankles belong to us!
Ironically my boy is seriously thinking about economics as a career.

Frazzled wrote:
My issue with the ad is that its 1) creepy 2) reveals Obama's true cradle to grave ideal ala Europe.

Except it doesn't actually describe a cradle to grave system, or even a system that is materially distinct from what was in place before he took office, at least in terms of years of available aid.

Frazzled wrote:
But frankly we've kicked Europe's ass economically since we started and continue to do so, even in our crapped out state.

If all you look at is growth, sure. If you look at growth, quality of life, average individual debt, etc. its not so cut and dry; especially if you look it Scandinavia which is about as close to a true cradle to grave system as you'll find.

Quality of life isn't even remotely close to be fair Dogma, I mean, I agree with the fiscal conservatives in the states personally, because I think we should take one for the team in order for our country to be strong, but that's my stupidity because I'm..well.. I dunno. Loyal? I'm a staunch Royalist maybe thats got something to do with it..and I like to think that its better for me to have a less perfect life if it means the nation as a whole benefits. Kinda stupid I suppose, Im at a loss as to why I think that.

I think its because Im healthier and fitter when im poor! I think that having less is beneficial, when I'm skint I work out twice a day and stay off the booze, when I'm rich I eat pizzas and get smashed regularly.. Its why I think we should give people less. Gotta be cruel to be kind in my book. No wonder everyone on the dole is obese and drunk all day, they get too much cash and have no motivation to do anything!

But I digress, QOL in Europe is fething far and away better than in the US, thats why we live here! My missus cant believe how much more time off people get here, and the UK is way harder working than many places in Europe.

I feel sorry for my hard working American chums, but as Frazz says, its for the good of the country you guys work your asses off.. Patriotism maybe?

This thread is focusing on the peas, but if you really wanted to make the administration look bad, there's a steak to be had.

mattyrm wrote:
But I digress, QOL in Europe is fething far and away better than in the US, thats why we live here! My missus cant believe how much more time off people get here, and the UK is way harder working than many places in Europe.

Its not just time off, healthcare benefits are also a big deal in terms of providing for better living conditions. Not only because they lead to a healthier populace, but tend to inflate the effective income of those lower on the economic ladder. I mean, as a foreign citizen visiting France I had better healthcare benefits than I received from my employer in the States.

mattyrm wrote:
I feel sorry for my hard working American chums, but as Frazz says, its for the good of the country you guys work your asses off.. Patriotism maybe?

But is it for the good of the country? I mean, the purpose of any given nation is seemingly the improvement of the conditions of the people living in that nation. If the nation doesn't serve that end, by improving the quality of life, then what's the point?

Ouze wrote:This thread is focusing on the peas, but if you really wanted to make the administration look bad, there's a steak to be had.

Not bad strategy, really, because its unlikely that releasing said prisoners will have a major positive effect on the amount of violence in those areas. It might embolden the insurgency, but the former prisoners themselves are no different from the many presently active potential prisoners already on the ground.

Of course, that's not how it will be spun by the GOP.

dogma wrote:Of course, that's not how it will be spun by the GOP.

Well, I wasn't thinking about the merits - these sorts of threads seldom are about that actual facts, and more about how they can be used as a cudgel politically. I think the prisoner release can be swung more effectively ("Weak on terror!") than can these vague "socialism" type things.

Ouze wrote:
Well, I wasn't thinking about the merits - these sorts of threads seldom are about that actual facts, and more about how they can be used as a cudgel politically. I think the prisoner release can be swung more effectively ("Weak on terror!") than can these vague "socialism" type things.

For sure. Its a nice segue into the traditional, Republican "We're stronger on defense than Democrats." line. Plus it sells itself to the "Obama is a secret Muslim!" crowd.

That said, I think Romney will avoid Afghanistan, and defense in general, not only because its not the hot button issue right now, but because I doubt the GOP has any better idea what to do about the whole situation.

Pull out faster than a jock on prom night.

So thirty seconds in and then he goes for a smoke?

Melissia wrote:So thirty seconds in and then he goes for a smoke?

Or a dip. Depends on if you're in the south or not.