Why does everyone hate Republicans?

[Dark]

I think watching YuGiOh would be more suitable on this Forum. We can watch Pokemon on Serebii.

[The Dark One]

Transfer students. Which kind of student will pay money to go live in a different country to further their education? The really freaking smart ones. You can't base everything off of transfer students.

 

I don't actually know about China or India. But I have a few friends in France that have been transfer students in a few different places each already. They aren't genius or anything (though they do have a better education than I do, because their system IS better) and their parents aren't rich. I think it's payed for by their government, and I get the impression it's pretty common.

 

A similar situation might be in place in India or China, so it isn't fair to say that only the smartest are transfering.

 

Also, America DOES have an unquestionably worse education system than most other industrialized countries. There have been studies on the issue.

[CrabHelmet]

Also' date=' America DOES have an unquestionably worse education system than most other industrialized countries. There have been studies on the issue.

[/quote']

 

Of course, this depends at least partly on two factors:

 

1) Where you are in the country. Even fairly nearby schools can vary drastically in quality, and since it's so huge, there's a lot of variation going on.

 

2) What you consider "good". See, educational systems often aren't simply unilaterally "better" or "worse" than one another in every way; different styles of education can have different emphases that introduce some good aspects and some bad aspects. For example, in my experience, students in England tend to specialize earlier than those in Ireland, which in turn tend to specialize sooner than those in America. The result is that an English student might enter his or her field sooner and go into greater depth more quickly, but an American student might have a much broader general knowledge. Which is better? Which is worse? Depends on what you want.

[OMGAKITTY]

Transfer students. Which kind of student will pay money to go live in a different country to further their education? The really freaking smart ones. You can't base everything off of transfer students.

 

I don't actually know about China or India. But I have a few friends in France that have been transfer students in a few different places each already. They aren't genius or anything (though they do have a better education than I do' date=' because their system IS better) and their parents aren't rich. I think it's payed for by their government, and I get the impression it's pretty common.

 

A similar situation might be in place in India or China, so it isn't fair to say that only the smartest are transfering.

 

Also, America DOES have an unquestionably worse education system than most other industrialized countries. There have been studies on the issue.

[/quote']

 

I'm not saying its only child prodigies that travel abroad, but the type of student who wants to go learn in a different country is probably the more academically motivated one of the batch.

[Dark]

OMGAKITTY is right, but also wrong. A lot of people have the intelligence but don't have the money to study abroad.

[CrabHelmet]

OMGAKITTY is right' date=' but also wrong. A lot of people have the intelligence but don't have the money to study abroad.

[/quote']

 

...which doesn't do a thing to change the fact that the people who do study abroad are generally above-average in intelligence, which is all that Catbus was saying.

 

This isn't that hard.

[Dweller of Parables]

OMGAKITTY is right' date=' but also wrong. A lot of people have the intelligence but don't have the money to study abroad.

[/quote']

 

...which doesn't do a thing to change the fact that the people who do study abroad are generally above-average in intelligence, which is all that Catbus was saying.

 

This isn't that hard.

 

Inside the mind of Dweller of Parables:

Crab, you of all people should know all YCMers sheet in their pants when: -someone breaks things down to a level of their understanding.

-someone just rephrases just what someone else said in a toned down form. (?c wut i did ther?)

-when someone speaks the truth but the person who spoke it was beaten 10 posts ago but it only counts because he or she is deemed epic.

-a post isn't from a post whore.

-a post didn't come from a troll.

-a post makes sense.

 

Side: studying abroad. 50/\/\3t1/\/\3s teh best teacher is yourself.

Other side: Republicans take things slowly as many of you know.

Other side: Democrats take things faster than Republicans as many of you know.

Other side: A liberal vs. a conservative. Same youtube poop.

The End.

[Dark]

@ Crab:

 

I don't believe anyone mentioned prior to myself that many individuals do not have the money to study abroad, so you cannot assume that all study abroad-er's are the generally smart population.

[The Dark One]

OMGAKITTY is right' date=' but also wrong. A lot of people have the intelligence but don't have the money to study abroad.

[/quote']

 

...which doesn't do a thing to change the fact that the people who do study abroad are generally above-average in intelligence, which is all that Catbus was saying.

 

This isn't that hard.

 

That's the point I'm contesting. It's not that hard.

[CrabHelmet]

@ Crab:

 

I don't believe anyone mentioned prior to myself that many individuals do not have the money to study abroad' date=' so you cannot assume that all study abroad-er's are the generally smart population.

[/quote']

 

Unless there is some magic country out there where intelligence and wealth are in strict inverse proportion, you will still find that the people who study abroad from that country are of above-average intelligence compared to a randomly selected person from that country. That does not mean, as you seem to believe was being said, that every single person above a certain level of intelligence will study abroad and every single person below that level will not.

[Static]

Because democrats are lazy. They want the government to do everything for them. I call them communists. But Republicans actually work for money and freedom. They don't want somebody (the government) doing every thing for them. But the dems do. And if the Republicans get guts' date=' they wouldn't let the democrats get away with everything. And possibly the most important reason, the Democrats are scared of the Republicans. No I was wrong, this is the most important reason, DEMOCRATS ARE CRAZY!! They're way too dramatic.

[/quote']

 

Read: bolded line.

 

Now: assume a democrat was in the government.

 

Because said democrat is lazy, he wants himself to do everything for himself.

 

:/

 

You don't understand what I said. When I said they want the government doing everything for them, that means that they want the government to give them money when they need it, they want the government to be in controll of EVERYTHING!

 

In a proper society, that's the way it would be.

 

But since this is America we're talking about, that's never going to be the case unless the middle east, through nothing short of divine will, conquers the white-bureaucratic world. Democrats want the government to do what the Government is supposed to do, take care of infrastructure, education, and the necessities, military being one requiring minimal maintenance. The republican party however wants RICH PEOPLE to take the place of government through corporate sponsorship and bribery, along with alloting a much larger amount of money to military, something that only helps stockholders. They want a nationalist economy; the rich being the elite, and nationalism in any form is simply unacceptable.

 

No. That is false. The Republicans want to cut spending, (unlike the Dems) on unecessary s***. They don't want rich people to be in charge. They want the government to be equal. Some Republicans and some Democrats.

 

Unnecessary s***... You mean that bullshit "National Security" scheme, right?

 

Biggest waste of money in history.

 

We SHOULD be spending money on infrastructure and Education, that's WHY I PAY TAXES. I'd evade them to no end if I knew it was all going towards pretend security or killing people... owait....

 

Republicans want Corporations to be unchecked and free to trade as they wish. That simply cannot be allowed; the government needs to make sure that these rich bastards are not doing what they're not supposed to do. Free trade in the Libertarian sense is simply too unchecked to be viable. International communities check each other, even the branches of our own government check each other, but we can't let Government check businesses? That's just bologna.

 

An "Equal" government, since you did use the term, is a Socialist one. There is no such thing as a viable "equal" government.

 

Oh ya. Education. Why the hell do we need to spend more on education!? In the early 1900's and before that, the government did nothing with the schools and education. They did fine. We dont' need to spend anymore on education. That is what I was talking about unnecessary s***!

 

Am I being trolled here?

 

Most public schooling in the country is awful, and in urban areas one of the key reasons behind street crime is because the kids didn't have a good enough education to make something of their lives.

 

Please explain to me what exactly our government should spend money on. Bombs are a waste because our brothers will still die defending no one. Please tell me, sir "not taxing people will make our country better," what should we spend our money on.

[Dark]

Static, I could swear you were a Republican. Whatever, not gonna question.

 

You might being trolled, he could be serious however. Stupid, but possibly serious.

 

If I were in his shoes, I'd get out of this mess and say I forgot that school and education were related.

[Dictator7]

Because democrats are lazy. They want the government to do everything for them. I call them communists. But Republicans actually work for money and freedom. They don't want somebody (the government) doing every thing for them. But the dems do. And if the Republicans get guts' date=' they wouldn't let the democrats get away with everything. And possibly the most important reason, the Democrats are scared of the Republicans. No I was wrong, this is the most important reason, DEMOCRATS ARE CRAZY!! They're way too dramatic.

[/quote']

 

Read: bolded line.

 

Now: assume a democrat was in the government.

 

Because said democrat is lazy, he wants himself to do everything for himself.

 

:/

 

You don't understand what I said. When I said they want the government doing everything for them, that means that they want the government to give them money when they need it, they want the government to be in controll of EVERYTHING!

 

In a proper society, that's the way it would be.

 

But since this is America we're talking about, that's never going to be the case unless the middle east, through nothing short of divine will, conquers the white-bureaucratic world. Democrats want the government to do what the Government is supposed to do, take care of infrastructure, education, and the necessities, military being one requiring minimal maintenance. The republican party however wants RICH PEOPLE to take the place of government through corporate sponsorship and bribery, along with alloting a much larger amount of money to military, something that only helps stockholders. They want a nationalist economy; the rich being the elite, and nationalism in any form is simply unacceptable.

 

No. That is false. The Republicans want to cut spending, (unlike the Dems) on unecessary s***. They don't want rich people to be in charge. They want the government to be equal. Some Republicans and some Democrats.

 

Unnecessary s***... You mean that bullshit "National Security" scheme, right?

 

Biggest waste of money in history.

 

We SHOULD be spending money on infrastructure and Education, that's WHY I PAY TAXES. I'd evade them to no end if I knew it was all going towards pretend security or killing people... owait....

 

Republicans want Corporations to be unchecked and free to trade as they wish. That simply cannot be allowed; the government needs to make sure that these rich bastards are not doing what they're not supposed to do. Free trade in the Libertarian sense is simply too unchecked to be viable. International communities check each other, even the branches of our own government check each other, but we can't let Government check businesses? That's just bologna.

 

An "Equal" government, since you did use the term, is a Socialist one. There is no such thing as a viable "equal" government.

 

Oh ya. Education. Why the hell do we need to spend more on education!? In the early 1900's and before that, the government did nothing with the schools and education. They did fine. We dont' need to spend anymore on education. That is what I was talking about unnecessary s***!

 

Am I being trolled here?

 

Most public schooling in the country is awful, and in urban areas one of the key reasons behind street crime is because the kids didn't have a good enough education to make something of their lives.

 

Please explain to me what exactly our government should spend money on. Bombs are a waste because our brothers will still die defending no one. Please tell me, sir "not taxing people will make our country better," what should we spend our money on.

 

I going to say this nicely.If a kid is going to commit a crime, he's going to do it even if he still has an education. We should spend money on the military and our country's defence. Which is what John McCain had stated when he was running for president. I am not a Republican but a Federalist. But the only reason I usually side with the Republicans is because I dislike the Democrat's beliefs more. A Federalist and a Republican are not the same thing. Just look it up on the internet if you don't believe me.

[Dark]

*face-palm*

 

I would rather be a smart millionaire from New York opposed to being a dumbass farmer from Texas.

[Dictator7]

Dark, what are you talking about?

[Dark]

You are saying spend less money on education and more on army and crap.

 

We are a dumbass country. If we DON'T spend money on education, we will all turn into moronic farmers from Texas. :/

[Dictator7]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place, and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[Sparta™]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Books? That's the only quick thing I thought of.

[The Dark One]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Actually yes, you can.

 

This is how. You fire most of the teachers you have, then you raise your salaries considerably. America is experiencing issues because the people who are very intelligent (ie: good teaching material) don't go into teaching as a profession because it doesn't pay well. Secondly, most teachers get a degree in education, when they should be getting a degree in the field they teach. Most schools for educators are rather poor.

[Dictator7]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Books? That's the only quick thing I thought of.

 

I know every school has some kind of books. I don't want to sound like a hag but, in the early 1900s and before schools had the simplest books and only one book, for every subject and the students had to get them. The teachers and schools should not have to supply them.

 

I think the teachers get paid way too much. My uncle is rich. Because he's a teacher. A reason most people don't want to be teachers is because most of the students are little jerks (that's a nice word for them) and need to be disciplined by they're parents. And teachers can't smack there hand with a ruler or put a dunce cap on they're heads. OOOOOOOOOOOOOO giving them detention isn't going to do anything.

[Sparta™]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Actually yes, you can.

 

This is how. You fire most of the teachers you have, then you raise your salaries considerably. America is experiencing issues because the people who are very intelligent (ie: good teaching material) don't go into teaching as a profession because it doesn't pay well. Secondly, most teachers get a degree in education, when they should be getting a degree in the field they teach. Most schools for educators are rather poor.

 

Most of the time, it's the student, not the teacher.

 

I've had many classmates that are not smart, and I've known them since kindergarten.

 

Anyway, most teachers teach because they like to teach children. (Tounge twister, eh?) Usually not because of money. Ask anybody.

 

 

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Books? That's the only quick thing I thought of.

 

I know every school has some kind of books. I don't want to sound like a hag but, in the early 1900s and before schools had the simplest books and only one book, for every subject and the students had to get them. The teachers and schools should not have to supply them.

 

That was before. We also have much more history now.

 

Their 12th grade is probably 8th.

 

Education is important though, so I agree with Dark, we do need to spend some money on Education. The children are the future.

[Dictator7]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Actually yes, you can.

 

This is how. You fire most of the teachers you have, then you raise your salaries considerably. America is experiencing issues because the people who are very intelligent (ie: good teaching material) don't go into teaching as a profession because it doesn't pay well. Secondly, most teachers get a degree in education, when they should be getting a degree in the field they teach. Most schools for educators are rather poor.

 

Most of the time, it's the student, not the teacher.

 

I've had many classmates that are not smart, and I've known them since kindergarten.

 

Anyway, most teachers teach because they like to teach children. (Tounge twister, eh?) Usually not because of money. Ask anybody.

 

 

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Books? That's the only quick thing I thought of.

 

I know every school has some kind of books. I don't want to sound like a hag but, in the early 1900s and before schools had the simplest books and only one book, for every subject and the students had to get them. The teachers and schools should not have to supply them.

 

That was before. We also have much more history now.

 

Their 12th grade is probably 8th.

 

Education is important though, so I agree with Dark, we do need to spend some money on Education. The children are the future.

 

Yes, and as me being one of those older chlidren, we are the future. School is only a preperation for collage. That is where we learn to be something. Most kids don't pay attention in school, and say they don't want to go to collage. Good students don't need anything else to help learn, I know because I am a good student.

[Sparta™]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Actually yes, you can.

 

This is how. You fire most of the teachers you have, then you raise your salaries considerably. America is experiencing issues because the people who are very intelligent (ie: good teaching material) don't go into teaching as a profession because it doesn't pay well. Secondly, most teachers get a degree in education, when they should be getting a degree in the field they teach. Most schools for educators are rather poor.

 

Most of the time, it's the student, not the teacher.

 

I've had many classmates that are not smart, and I've known them since kindergarten.

 

Anyway, most teachers teach because they like to teach children. (Tounge twister, eh?) Usually not because of money. Ask anybody.

 

 

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Books? That's the only quick thing I thought of.

 

I know every school has some kind of books. I don't want to sound like a hag but, in the early 1900s and before schools had the simplest books and only one book, for every subject and the students had to get them. The teachers and schools should not have to supply them.

 

That was before. We also have much more history now.

 

Their 12th grade is probably 8th.

 

Education is important though, so I agree with Dark, we do need to spend some money on Education. The children are the future.

 

Yes, and as me being one of those older chlidren, we are the future. School is only a preperation for collage. That is where we learn to be something. Most kids don't pay attention in school, and say they don't want to go to collage. Good students don't need anything else to help learn, I know because I am a good student.

 

The only reason I would spend more than expected on education, is because most children are selfish and lazy. They don't like to read because of words. The only way to teach them is to teach them through something "fun."

[Dictator7]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Actually yes, you can.

 

This is how. You fire most of the teachers you have, then you raise your salaries considerably. America is experiencing issues because the people who are very intelligent (ie: good teaching material) don't go into teaching as a profession because it doesn't pay well. Secondly, most teachers get a degree in education, when they should be getting a degree in the field they teach. Most schools for educators are rather poor.

 

Most of the time, it's the student, not the teacher.

 

I've had many classmates that are not smart, and I've known them since kindergarten.

 

Anyway, most teachers teach because they like to teach children. (Tounge twister, eh?) Usually not because of money. Ask anybody.

 

 

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Books? That's the only quick thing I thought of.

 

I know every school has some kind of books. I don't want to sound like a hag but, in the early 1900s and before schools had the simplest books and only one book, for every subject and the students had to get them. The teachers and schools should not have to supply them.

 

That was before. We also have much more history now.

 

Their 12th grade is probably 8th.

 

Education is important though, so I agree with Dark, we do need to spend some money on Education. The children are the future.

 

Yes, and as me being one of those older chlidren, we are the future. School is only a preperation for collage. That is where we learn to be something. Most kids don't pay attention in school, and say they don't want to go to collage. Good students don't need anything else to help learn, I know because I am a good student.

 

The only reason I would spend more than expected on education, is because most children are selfish and lazy. They don't like to read because of words. The only way to teach them is to teach them through something "fun."

 

No affence or anything but I can tell you are a democrat. Who cares if they are lazy or selfisht. Why would you spend good tax payers money on that, when those kids probably aren't going to care. They see school as being stupid, a waist of time, and a time to talk. Even if the learning is "fun". My point is that even that is a waist of time. That is were the kids parent should come in and give the kids a talking to.

[Sparta™]

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Actually yes, you can.

 

This is how. You fire most of the teachers you have, then you raise your salaries considerably. America is experiencing issues because the people who are very intelligent (ie: good teaching material) don't go into teaching as a profession because it doesn't pay well. Secondly, most teachers get a degree in education, when they should be getting a degree in the field they teach. Most schools for educators are rather poor.

 

Most of the time, it's the student, not the teacher.

 

I've had many classmates that are not smart, and I've known them since kindergarten.

 

Anyway, most teachers teach because they like to teach children. (Tounge twister, eh?) Usually not because of money. Ask anybody.

 

 

Now I get what you are saying. But answer this for me. If you in Obama's place' date=' and you said you were going to spend on education, what would you spend on it. What needs money? You can't fix the way the teachers teach.

[/quote']

 

Books? That's the only quick thing I thought of.

 

I know every school has some kind of books. I don't want to sound like a hag but, in the early 1900s and before schools had the simplest books and only one book, for every subject and the students had to get them. The teachers and schools should not have to supply them.

 

That was before. We also have much more history now.

 

Their 12th grade is probably 8th.

 

Education is important though, so I agree with Dark, we do need to spend some money on Education. The children are the future.

 

Yes, and as me being one of those older chlidren, we are the future. School is only a preperation for collage. That is where we learn to be something. Most kids don't pay attention in school, and say they don't want to go to collage. Good students don't need anything else to help learn, I know because I am a good student.

 

The only reason I would spend more than expected on education, is because most children are selfish and lazy. They don't like to read because of words. The only way to teach them is to teach them through something "fun."

 

No affence or anything but I can tell you are a democrat. Who cares if they are lazy or selfisht. Why would you spend good tax payers money on that, when those kids probably aren't going to care. They see school as being stupid, a waist of time, and a time to talk. Even if the learning is "fun". My point is that even that is a waist of time. That is were the kids parent should come in and give the kids a talking to.

 

Check the thread maker.

 

I believe in spending for the military, but seriously, we aren't even going to know how to shoot a gun if we are idiots.

 

And I believe in low spending. Check that I said "some".

 

Truthfully, saying I'm a Democrat is like believing in Voodoo. Because I'm not. XD