Liberal Hypocrisy and local politics

a reply to: Vector99

Well actually I don't, and shown the recent evidence showing the political status of the area I rescind my assertion that the OP was over-assuming. The evidence shows 95% is an accurate number.

Unless you know the political affiliation and positions of each person involved in this, it remains to be an assumption.

Now, would you care to discuss the topic rather than the replies?

I have been doing so. Thanks for your concern.

What do you think about forceful redistricting of schools for purpose of diversification?

I think it is up to the local people to decide what they want for their schools. If they do not like what is happening, change it. Very simple.

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheLead

Considering he stated raging liberals it was most likely stated in an exaggerated manner ,but Ketsuko showed the statistics may have been more accurate than he possibly knew.

Considering he stated "probably", he created a thread based on an assumption.

That was all I was pointing out.

If they are liberals would their position be hypocritical to you?

Sure. It appears this is a case of a "not in my back yard"-sort of situation that we see quite often. Of course it is hypocritical and it is not relegated to one political ideology over another.

That is another reason to say the OP is based on logical fallacies.

Aren't you the guy /gal, who said he was impartial?

A quick look at your threads and post history shows a clear bias.

No. I freely admit I am biased to my personal ideals and ideas.

We all are.

Are we now going off topic with ad hom fallacies instead of talking about the OP and the issue at hand?

a reply to: introvert

Your deflection tactics are insanely stupid and obvious. You have yet to address the topic of the thread, and rather have gone off on a self-righteous tangent of how you are on topic.

Have a good day sir/ma'am, I don't care to talk to brick walls.

liberals, liberals, liberals!!! my god!!
here's some conservative hypocrisy for ya!!
we all know that in the rural areas of the country, most of the residents lean right....
right???
and we all know that the right is all for the interests of big business and they like oil pipelines, and like with the border wall, they don't really mind placing the property rights of the people secondary to their goal... for the good of the nation of course!!
okay, this is what is happening on the other side of the mountain I am living on...
we have tree sitters in the trees, on their own land... other people are on the ground, protesting..
all to protect their property rights, or more accurately... they are protecting their well water!!
against a pipeline that let's be honest here... NO ONE WANTS IT RUNNING THROUGH THEIR COMMUNITY!!
although there may be some liberals protesting or sitting in the trees, I am pretty sure that there are also many conservatives, trump voting folks that are also... just like there are many conservative, trump voters in the path of that border wall that will be happy to speak out against it when given the chance!
what you are calling hypocrisy is merely human nature. we want all kids to have the same quality of education, even if they live in poorer communities... and to be honest, their "diversity plan" really doesn't do much to move us into that reality... but no one really wants their own education to suffer to get us there..
just like we all would like secure borders, except we reallly don't want to find that our home is suddenly in the no man's land not really outside of US territory but just outside the wall that is put there to keep people out of that territory.. and we all might like the idea of cheap gas, and oh ya, those jobs do pay quite nicely!!! but ya know what... I've told my sons about those jobs, and not a one of them will bite... ya see, we really aren't sure just where that pipeline is going through, it just looks like it's on the other side of the mountain.. it's possible that when that pipeline starts springing leaks that the creek running through our land will be contaminated, our well water. and the best I can come up with it that well, with the pay yous would be getting it would cut down on the cost of the tanks and such for use to convert over to rain water collection system.

so, ya see... all your liberal blah, blah, blah... I really think that if you were one of those being affected by that border wall that so many of yous love so much, if it was cutting your golf course in half, if it was placing you house in no man's land where not even the emergency services can reach you while your home burns to the ground. if it was cutting your cattle off from the water supply....
and if that pipeline was running close to where you were living, regardless of how much you put down the water protectors when it was indian territory that was being affected...
you would be just as hypocritical, probably more so since you would have more at stake than just your kid's education.
and god, let's not even talk about if some mining company was given permission to blow up half your mountain for that "clean coal"!!!

a reply to: Edumakated

Schools reflect the money you invest in them... obviously...


We invest crap in schools ... this isn’t a hard issue to understand lmao.


You get what you pay for.

a reply to: introvert

Well see your were obfuscating with semantics, the probable was the percentage of them being liberal, not that they are probably liberal. You were debating around the meat and potatoes.

I agree with your actual answer to the question the OP asked, as I have said before there is no such thing as non-bias which means there is no such thing as non-partisan. I would suggest from my opinion that you yourself typically respond combative to one ideology over the other. It seems there are a few on here that claim non-partisan that in fact act in that same manner. Is it for th me sake of debate? Do you expect more out of conservative posters? Or is it just my imagination?

a reply to: kaylaluv

As long as "good" doesn´t mean "your personal ideology", I think no reasonable person will argue against that. That is, until you disclose what you as the chosen representatives of all liberals

we liberals

mean by "good".

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

Your deflection tactics are insanely stupid and obvious. You have yet to address the topic of the thread, and rather have gone off on a self-righteous tangent of how you are on topic.

I specifically addressed the topic in the very post you are responding to.

Not sure what else I can do for ya.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Edumakated

Schools reflect the money you invest in them... obviously...


We invest crap in schools ... this isn’t a hard issue to understand lmao.


You get what you pay for.

So Explain how the Detroit or Flint School districts still suck after decades of getting more than the average per student in funding?

That's not even including all the private charitable donations to students there.

They get over 15K per student per year. Thats more than the Birmingham School District which is a very rich area.

Link to Data

If it were simply or mainly a matter of funding, we wouldn't be seeing such differences.

a reply to: Edumakated

LOL, Karma really is a #itch!

Suffer the wealthy Democrats, getting what they've dished out to the hollowed out middle class for years in fly-over-country. Wrecked public schools, ruined property values, and absurd crime rates.

A pox on them all!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

Like conservatives don't want what's best for kids as well.....

Then why move kids? Is it the Schools that make the kids good or the Kids that make the Schools good? I've shown it isn't a lack of funding per pupil, so what is it?

Equality of Outcome vs Opportunity

a reply to: TheLead

Well see your were obfuscating with semantics, the probable was the percentage of them being liberal, not that they are probably liberal.

No. I was questioning their logic based on what they actually posted. It appears it is you that is trying to argue semantics by making another assumption, not knowing exactly what the poster meant or what their intent is/was but making an assumption of it.

You were debating around the meat and potatoes.

The "meat and potatoes" itself is what I have been talking about.

That is the problem. How can we discuss the issue logically when the entire basic premise of the thread is rooted in an assumption?

I agree with your actual answer to the question the OP asked, as I have said before there is no such thing as non-bias which means there is no such thing as non-partisan.

Ok.

I would suggest from my opinion that you yourself typically respond combative to one ideology over the other.

If you have not noticed, I tend to questions people's logic, while other members question the validity of the information they use to come to their conclusions.

Considering that ATS appears to be predominately Right Wing, I'm sure it does appear that I am "combative" with one ideology over the other.

But I have to ask, what does this have to do with the topic?

It seems there are a few on here that claim non-partisan that in fact act in that same manner.

What does that have to do with me?

Is it for th me sake of debate?

I don't know. Ask those that claim to be non-partisan. How would I know?

Do you expect more out of conservative posters? Or is it just my imagination?

It's rare to find a conservative on this site. I only know of two members that actually have a conservative ideology and they tend to meet the most basic expectations we should desire from an intelligent member.

But I don't think that is the answer you wanted. Perhaps you should reform the question and be more specific.

a reply to: introvert

There's more than one way to fry a hamburger.

🧐

a reply to: Edumakated

Interesting article (though I’m sure it’s too liberally biased for your tastes). I believe it does affect students when they don’t have updated technology, adequate staffing, etc.

www.theatlantic.com...

Maybe the solution is to shut down the poor inner city schools and take what money these areas do have to bus the students to the richer schools.

a reply to: Edumakated

I'm a musician. As you can imagine, the community is something like 99.99% liberal. They cry about wages, etc, all. The. Time.
I was talking with a friend a couple years back, who typically tries to bait me on whatever liberal flavor-of-the-month topic, and was asking about his experience in hiring out help. I needed someone for a particular gig and, knowing he had experience with that, I inquired even though I knew what the gpingnrate is for smaller stuff... $100/person each night. That rate hasn't changed since the 80s, bit I wanted the best person possible so I floated the idea "what if it was $100/night MINIMUM and an equal profit share if the band as a whole made more than $100/person?" It was me at my most Bernie Sanders. Sure, I write everything, acquired all the gear, transportation, spent hours just just on communications involved with the gig, but so what right? Oddly, my uber liberal friend showed his Wal-Mart colors and said "No way, they get the $100, and that's it. They have zero input, and don't contribute as much, why should they get paid more." Some time later I was on a date when I ran into him and he tried to bait me on a gay marriage conversation for absolutely no reason, so I walked away and haven't talked to him since... but this is the norm. Liberals' or Progressives' interest in others onpy extends to whatever extent they can impose their beliefs on you. Theyre not actually interested in being the change, just in feeling superior by pointing out someone else isnt doing enough.
I understand anecdotes don't equal evidence bit, if you're a musician, I challenge you to have a similar discussion with any other working musician. Go ahead, pick the most progressive one you know.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Edumakated


In your first example, those parents aren't upset about racial diversity, they're upset because the school is accepting students who are below the educational standards of the classrooms they're being placed in, bringing the "learning curve" down and slowing down the education of student who are performing up to educational standards.

You second example, if students are using addresses to get into a school, the people who own the homes whose addresses are being used are paying taxes, that go to the public schools in their area, even if they don't have kids. People who have kids don't pay more taxes than the ones who don't. Schools get funding based on student count, not on how many kids live in the neighborhood.

So, hypocrisy alert fail, in my opinion.

1. Wrong. It's not about "racial diversity" it's about serving a "lower class." Still hypocritical.
2. You don't know that it's a public school. You assume. It actually sounds like a private school, so again... you fail.

a reply to: bender151


Wrong, it's not about racial diversity or serving a lower class, the parents were upset about incoming students lowing the learning curve and slowing their children's education down to accommodate students who are not performing up the classroom standards.

If you read the article, you'd see that this discussion was about the New York City School system, not a private school.

Have some coffee and donut. It's a beautiful day!

What's all this BS about Liberals and Conservatives? All as I can see is rich people against poor people. The rich people have made (through moving into an area) an "exclusive"school and they don't want any poor kids mixing with their kids as the perceive poor kids as poorly educated and god forbid their children might pick up some nasty poor persons traits when they mix. This aint got nothing to do with political leanings but everything to do with rich privilege and keeping it exclusive.

a reply to: crayzeed

Having read the thread and the article, you are spot on. This is a battle of economic classes, not opposing political viewpoints.

If anything, my "liberal" side is "triggered" by the fact that schools are economically segregated. It makes sense by the way the system is set up and it takes this kind of heavy-handed approach to correct it. But it sucks and we should try to fix the entire system instead of putting band-aids like this on the problem. If schools are to be public then they should be equitably funded, not equally, or else we'd end up with rural schools having budgets for marching bands without a total student count to fill the band let alone student interest in such an activity.

A hard fact of the matter is simply the difference in culture between the middle, working and poor classes. To paint with a broad brush for a moment: For the middle class, higher education or taking over the family business is about the only option to maintain status. For the working class graduating and entering the workforce is the goal. For the poor, survival is the goal, education/legitimate jobs be damned. Of course all classes have exceptions, but they are just that: Certain individuals who through their own personal drive step across the canyon, so to speak, to move themselves up the economic ladder.

Somehow, this exception has been purported as a "rule" in the American sense. Working class mom and dad produce middle class offspring. It has always been an exception but somehow made it into the ever elusive "American Dream" notion.

By the ATS litmus test, I would be the libbiest-lib-that-eber-libbed because I believe in a fair baseline. Free or affordable education, healthcare, food and housing. Pretty easy for the most advanced and wealthy country on the face of the planet that happens to occupy a large swath of a continent. But a neigh impossible task because of particular beliefs in our society. Once we drop the puritan notion of "work makes good" we can move away from this nonsense.

TL;DR version: The issue lies in our economic classes and not our political divide. Equitable distribution of public resources is probably the simplest solution. But that's too commie for most people around here and at large in the US.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Edumakated


In your first example, those parents aren't upset about racial diversity, they're upset because the school is accepting students who are below the educational standards of the classrooms they're being placed in, bringing the "learning curve" down and slowing down the education of student who are performing up to educational standards.

You second example, if students are using addresses to get into a school, the people who own the homes whose addresses are being used are paying taxes, that go to the public schools in their area, even if they don't have kids. People who have kids don't pay more taxes than the ones who don't. Schools get funding based on student count, not on how many kids live in the neighborhood.

So, hypocrisy alert fail, in my opinion.

Thats the spin these racist progressive swine are putting on their stance.

The reality is that diversity is good for the but not for me. I would like to see their million dollar communities have section 8 housing built in them. Then the open borders, pro illegal immigration blowhards can experience the diversity they've demanded every one ELSE exlerience.

You realize that their "educational standards" argument is the same argument that pro segregation racists used right? You do realize that right?

Stop defending racist scumbags.