You hit the nail on the head. I can think of several cases where teachers have been fired and prosecuted for inappropriate and criminal behavior. Teachers Unions give counsel to teachers yes. But there main function is to lessen the gap between the working class(teachers) and the fat pig overlords(administration).
Just that we are on the same page, the number of attacks that result in serious injury but not death is far, far larger.
Also, bear might not be the worst you that can get you.
1 Like
Thatās a pretty naive way of looking at it. Teachers unions are the reason shitty teachers donāt get fired because of shit like tenure. No one should ever be exempt from being fired just because theyāve held that position for a certain amount of time.
Most of my teachers in middle school had tenure, and they quite literally did nothing, and spent their time ranting about their political beliefs, instead of actually teaching, and my school had a good reputation too.
1 Like
Tenure is the favorite hot topic for people who want to disassemble the public school system and make education only available to the wealthy. There are plenty of ways to make our public schools better. Most of which involve taking money from fat pigs and giving it to the less fortunate. Socialism! You cry. Making education available to all has been a part of the very socialistic society that America was born from. Of the People by the People for the People. The communism that is rightly referred to as the bane of socialism is a result of countries trying to get what we have and failing miserably. Donāt be suckered by colonial dogs.
No itās the favorite topic for people who want teachers to have to maintain their work ethic for their entire career.
How exactly does a teacher becoming basically un fireable past 6-10 years translate to education only becoming available for the wealthy?
If you taxed the rich 100% of their income in this country, it would not even subsidize Obama care for three years.
America was not born from a āsocialisticā society. To even build freeways, the federal government had to find loopholes and designate them military assets for national defense. The entire rebellion started over a 2% tax on tea.
America was born from a tradition of limited government, hence why up until 70 years ago, we always had a tiny military, no such thing as a department of education, welfare, and so on.
Limited government is socialism. For the peopleā¦ git it? Donāt be confused by the relatively new corporate conglomerate monopoly mess that is private enterprise today.
Maybe in lala fairyland.
Iāll bite though. Lets say the U.S was practing the theory of Socialism, and not the real world result of it. Does this mean everything was collectively owned? Because it wasnāt in my timeline, maybe you live in an alternate universe.
We can have a long drawn out discussion about how to save education if you want to but I just have two questions. Do you want people like teachers to get more money or less? Do you wanāt everyone to get an education or just the top end?
Public land still belongs to us. Iāll die defending that.
I donāt no how that relates to education but are you aware of how much money we spend sticking our thumbs in other peoples pie? And we cant take care of our own sick and wounded?
Well it belongs to the government, unfortunately i would not qualify that was belonging to us. And aside from public land what else was collectively owned to qualify the Untied States as a socialist nation? Things like factories, farms, news papers, ect, are not and were not ever collectively owned.
Well as a recipient of Public education, (my mother is also a public school teacher) i believe everyone should of course get access to k-12.
Depends on the teachers. Some deserve it some do not. I think teachers could use a slight pay raise. But to truly fix our education system i think it needs a large overhaul.
Standardized tests, and common core, have destroyed it imo, and paying teachers more wonāt fix that.
Yes im well aware, and disgusted by the wastefulness of our government. But the thing is we could not afford those things either, they just borrowed money and shackled future generations with trillions of dollars in debt.
It relates because the idea that the rich can pay for all these proposed social programs is untrue and immoral imo.
Your lucky we are not in public for I would be duty bound to challenge you to a duel sr. You are a traitor in my eyes.
Donāt mistake what I believe should be and what is. The government tells me that the money I pay into Social security is mine, but we both know itās not, and that they spend it all away like everything else and I wonāt ever see a penny of it.
Iām close to abstaining from discussion with you but let me just say this. Social security has been working for people for a long time. Do people want that money for other things? You bet. Dose it need to be helped with a possible influx of new retires? Sure. If this government reduced its presence overseas by ten percent it would be taken care of.
I am a sovereign citizen. Do not confuse that with the propaganda of corporate trolls that exploited crazy people.
sorry this is what I was looking for. Taken from wikipedia.
Popular sovereignty
Popular sovereignty, or the sovereignty of the peoplesā rule, is part of the seven principles, that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated with social contract philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[a] The people have the final say in government decisions. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, āIn free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereignsā.[1]
Americans founded their Revolution and government on popular sovereignty, but the term was also used in the 1850s to describe a highly controversial approach to slavery in the territories as propounded by senator Stephen A. Douglas. It meant that local residents of a territory would be the ones to decide if slavery would be permitted, and it led to bloody warfare in Bleeding Kansas as violent abolitionists and proponents of slavery flooded Kansas territory in order to decide the elections. An earlier development of popular sovereignty arose from philosopher Francisco Suarez and became the basis for Latin American independence. Popular sovereignty also can be described as the voice of the people.
Just to be clear, I donāt in any way condone or otherwise tolerate slavery. This country is made up of quite a divers group. Crossover is inevitable.
Really the only people who are able to get the benefits of SS are boomers.
Thatās not the problem. The problem is the government started tapping into SS funds to pay for other things. If they just left it alone like they were supposed to, people would actually get the money they paid into for years.
Ten percent? We have over 200 bases over seas, iād ideally like to see probably 90% of those close up, but even then i doubt it would make a dent in the debt and deficit problem.
What nonsense
How about you explain then. At what point in time, was there collective ownership over the means of production? Or even what most people consider Socialism now, social programs subsidized by the government?