Education thread

[Mr.B]

#3-- fail.

[Vrede too]

Jeff Sessions: Protections for disabled kids are ruining America's schools

[Vrede too]

Trump Wanted Jerry Falwell Jr. To Run The U.S. Department of Education

:!:

DeVos (Trump's Secretary of Education) Devoted Career To Dismantling Public Education

Are we not educated? No, we are DeVos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_We_No ... _Are_Devo!

What Happens To Science In A Trump White House?

Can't compete with China if fundy science illiterates like Pence are running the show.

[Vrede too]

Watch closely.



Evan

I didn't see that coming.

[Boatrocker]

Watch closely.



Evan

I didn't see that coming.

Whoa.

[Mr.B]

Blame it on Trump? Bush? The NRA? The Republicans? The Second Amendment?

[Mr.B]

...

[rstrong]

Blame it on Trump? Bush? The NRA? The Republicans? The Second Amendment?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton failed to seize everyone's guns the way the Republicans and NRA constantly and endlessly promised he would.

Obama went even further, making even Ronald Reagan look Mr.B's gun-grabber boogeyman by comparison. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has given Obama an “F” on every issue on which it graded him. Obama even signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains. Which again, rudely contradicted constant and endless promises by the Republicans and NRA that he'd seize everyone's guns at any moment.

And so when Obama supported universal background checks - which Bush II, McCain, Reagan and NRA leader Wayne LaPierre had all supported - now the NRA and Republicans were forced to declare a jihad against the idea. They had to make increasingly wingnutty demands, like the one for loaded guns in every pre-school and classroom. It was the only way they could keep conning gullible inbreds.

As Mr.B demonstrates, they were successful. Any nutjob or felon is merely inconvenienced in getting a gun, all because Bill Clinton and Barack Obama failed to be anti-gun the way the NRA promised.

[Mr.B]

"crybaby paranoid fantasies ®....."
Dang. I forgot about this being another of your names for us "gunhuggers".

"Guess he'll never be signing nor living the promise."
Shades of Facebook's "can I get a like, comment and share?". The link smacks of 'click-bait'.

[Mr.B]

Blame it on Trump? Bush? The NRA? The Republicans? The Second Amendment?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton failed to seize everyone's guns the way the Republicans and NRA constantly and endlessly promised he would.

Obama went even further, making even Ronald Reagan look Mr.B's gun-grabber boogeyman by comparison. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has given Obama an “F” on every issue on which it graded him. Obama even signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains. Which again, rudely contradicted constant and endless promises by the Republicans and NRA that he'd seize everyone's guns at any moment.

And so when Obama supported universal background checks - which Bush II, McCain, Reagan and NRA leader Wayne LaPierre had all supported - now the NRA and Republicans were forced to declare a jihad against the idea. They had to make increasingly wingnutty demands, like the one for loaded guns in every pre-school and classroom. It was the only way they could keep conning gullible inbreds.

As Mr.B demonstrates, they were successful. Any nutjob or felon is merely inconvenienced in getting a gun, all because Bill Clinton and Barack Obama failed to be anti-gun the way the NRA promised.

Well said.

[Vrede too]

It's adorable that Mr.B thinks I should bother with new adjectives when his self-abasement never wavers.

I had posted, as Mr.B runs screeching away from most of with his selective quote, but I quickly removed it because I didn't want to add to his being an inconsiderate spoiler of the apolitical video that both Boatrocker and I were deliberately vague about. Here's the full post:

I looked, thought that there was a chance of being pleasantly surprised by reading the same horror and compassion that I felt watching the video (2 million views in 2 days).

Nope, just the usual whiny perpetual victimhood from a coward that couldn't handle going to the recommended website to see if his crybaby paranoid fantasies are really there. Hint: They aren't. Guess he'll never be signing nor living the promise.

"click-bait" - "Sandy Hook Promise is led by several family members whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School and a talented staff of seasoned professionals". Yep, even grieving parents are part of the conspiracy against pants-wetting frightened, poor widdle Mr.B. Sad.

[Mr.B]

It's adorable® that Mr.B thinks I should bother with new adjectives when his self-abasement never wavers.

I had posted, as Mr.B runs screeching away® from most of with his selective quote, but I quickly removed it because I didn't want to add to his being an inconsiderate spoiler of the apolitical video that both Boatrocker and I were deliberately vague about. Here's the full post:

I looked, thought that there was a chance of being pleasantly surprised by reading the same horror and compassion that I felt watching the video (2 million views in 2 days).

Nope, just the usual whiny perpetual victimhood® from a coward that couldn't handle going to the recommended website to see if his crybaby paranoid fantasies® are really there. Hint: They aren't. Guess he'll never be signing nor living the promise.

"click-bait" - "Sandy Hook Promise is led by several family members whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School and a talented staff of seasoned professionals". Yep, even grieving parents are part of the conspiracy against pants-wetting® frightened,® poor widdle Mr.B. Sad.

"Guess he'll never be signing nor living the promise."

Let's dispense with the b.s. and your copyrighted-name calling for a moment and get serious.

What good would/does it do to sign a promise?
How can one's signature on a document prevent someone who's parents ignore him all his/her life, or has a fascination for "fame", from shooting up a school or workplace?

How can one's signature promise that he/she can/will stop such an incident from occurring once the incident has begun?

Lastly, how is strict/stricter gun legislation going to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who are bent on murder, robbery, or assaults? All legislation will do is make it harder for individuals to legally own weapons; it for damn sure ain't going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Why do you think they're called criminals to begin with?

Therefore, signing a promise that wants your name and email address (or money) is nothing more than click-bait, the same as "please like, comment, and share" as seen on social media sites.

I sympathize with the bereaved families; not only Sandy Hook, but every senseless killing by a gun-toting nut, and if I were to find myself in a position to prevent something of this nature from happening, I would readily do so; and I wouldn't have to sign a promise first.

Now, back to your childish squabbling and ranting.

[Vrede too]

4 million views in 4 days.

[rstrong]

What good would/does it do to sign a promise?

The NRA provides a perfect example. Even with a relatively small membership, merely by being loud and political they're able to affect policy. They're able to ensure that there are still loopholes for selling guns to felons and the mentally ill. They're able to ensure that people can go unpunished when their toddler shoots someone. (Which happens in America on a weekly basis; 58 times last year.) They're able to prevent and punish government-funded research into gun safety.

The NRA has been highly successful in opposing responsible gun ownership. This sort of focused grassroots organization works, in a way that a background noise of infinite internet petitions doesn't.

Lastly, how is strict/stricter gun legislation going to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who are bent on murder, robbery, or assaults?

No-one claims that legislation stops all murders and rapes and kidnappings. But only most stupid of sub-morons would deny that the legislation greatly cuts down on those crimes.

Legislation won't stop drunk driving. But when people got fed up with drunk drivers and demanded action, the government cracked down and strengthened related laws in the early 1970s. And it worked: Drunk driving deaths were cut by two thirds. And that's WITHOUT - as an NRA of drinking would claim - "taking away everyone's drinks." All that was demanded and legislated was a bit of responsible behavior.

Whether you like it or not, Vrede is correct in that in having a gun "for protection", the increase in danger of an accidental gun death far outweighs the decrease in danger from a robbery or assault. It doesn't have to be this way, and reducing the risk doesn't require banning guns any more than reducing drunk driving fatalities required banning alcohol.

But of course you'll ignore the responsibility angle and keep claiming that it's about taking away everyone's guns.

[Vrede too]

What good would/does it do to sign a promise?

None other than opening yourself up to receiving more information, just as saying one believes in Jesus does no good for anyone. Signing/saying is just the first step, one then has to take concrete action to live up to the promise. And, as the website makes clear, there are lots of actions besides gun/gun owner regulation. Or, you can just throw up your hands in helpless defeat and accept our epidemic of murdered children.

Whether you like it or not, Vrede is correct in that in having a gun "for protection", the increase in danger of an accidental gun death

And suicide and family/friend homicide, along with sometimes putting the stolen/seized gun into the "hands of idiots who are bent on murder, robbery, or assaults."

far outweighs the decrease in danger from a robbery or assault. It doesn't have to be this way, and reducing the risk doesn't require banning guns any more than reducing drunk driving fatalities required banning alcohol.

But of course you'll ignore the responsibility angle and keep claiming that it's about taking away everyone's guns.

rstrong makes a strong logical case, but we also have indisputable empirical evidence. Fewer guns and/or stricter regulation consistently leads to less gun violence, not just in the homes that he mentions, but also among US states and comparable nations. Mr.B can try to argue that it shouldn't be so, but we have the facts in hand.

[O Really]

I have a question of logic - no political viewpoint necessary. If passing laws prohibiting or limited some behaviour doesn't stop that behaviour, then why have any laws prohibiting or restricting any behaviour? If speed limits don't stop people from speeding, why have speed limits? If people rob banks despite laws against it, why have laws against robbing banks?

[Vrede too]

Or, if religious texts prohibiting or limiting some behavior doesn't stop that behavior, then why have religious texts?

[O Really]

Good point. And as I think about it, I'll bet despite generations of moms telling them not to, there are some kids who run with scissors, jump into mud puddles, and cross their eyes. Think how much easier parenting would be if parents just realized that prohibiting behaviour doesn't stop it.

[Vrede too]

Everyone enjoys a good, "I told you so."

I was never cruel or destructive, but I was adventurous. My Mom was wise enough to eventually just ask me to tell her where I was going and what I was going to do, which I mostly did.

[O Really]

Ah, see, you had a wise mother. Since prohibiting your adventurous behaviour did not prevent it, she became in charge of the NRA and only asks that you tell her who you intend to shoot.