That damned racist Tea Party :shakesfist:

[michigancat]

The party of inclusion

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

self loather?

I don't think he's really a tea party guy, the dem just had nothing else to fight with, like the rest of the dems across the country.

They also claimed he was a gay restroom predator. If he had been a democrat there would have been protests filling the streets claiming homophobic bigotry.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/03/carl_demaio_sexual_harassment_second_former_staffer_makes_allegations.html

This does make him kind of come across as a weirdo.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/03/carl_demaio_sexual_harassment_second_former_staffer_makes_allegations.html

This does make him kind of come across as a weirdo.

There's a much bigger back story to the allegations that make them likely to be untrue.

[CNS]

When I think of the new branch of the right, that is the extreme right, I think of tolerance and inclusion.

They are really figuring this stuff out.  Gotta admit, it's going to be weird when he successfully limits his own rights.

[sonofdaxjones]

Prog-Lib elite stealth racists are going to be mumbling hard over cocktails about those two "sell outs".

[michigancat]

Feel bad for those Republican elects because the prog/lib smear and "sell out" campaign is going to be brutal for those two.

Prog-Lib elite stealth racists are going to be mumbling hard over cocktails about those two "sell outs".

lol

[star seed 7]

Pakked Dax

[Dugout DickStone]

The Tea Party is still a thing?

I thought this was a TBT but noticed it was Wednesday and was pretty confused as well

anybody that can win as the candidate of a dead movement has to be pretty good.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Gotta admit, it's going to be weird when he successfully limits his own rights.

I think you're confusing the tea party with democrats again.

[star seed 7]

Wut?

[sonofdaxjones]

Sell outs!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/06/scott-on-f-grade-from-naacp-its-because-i-believe-that-progress-has-to-be-made/

The NAACP gives Tim Scott a grade of "UT". 

[MakeItRain]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/06/scott-on-f-grade-from-naacp-its-because-i-believe-that-progress-has-to-be-made/

The NAACP gives Tim Scott a grade of "UT". 

Scott’s score from the NAACP was 11 percent for 2013, while his South Carolina colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) got 25 percent. Lawmakers were scored on whether they voted with the official NAACP position.

Any politician who supports school vouchers should get a failing grade from the NAACP. School vouchers does the opposite of supporting struggling urban schools.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

School vouchers does the opposite of supporting struggling urban schools.

That's true - but voucher proponents care about helping struggling urban students who would like a chance to succeed at a nicer school - not about helping the struggling urban schools. This is why former D.C. school super Michelle Rhee now supports vouchers. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/04/michelle-rhee-my-break-with-the-democrats.html#

But I don't expect a socialist such as yourself to understand the merit of that difference. Hard as it is to believe, many socialists, such as yourself, really believe that even if kids and their parents want a better opportunity, they must be sacrificed and remain caged in their horrible urban public schools because it would only further hurt the school to set them free.

[Rage Against the McKee]

School vouchers does the opposite of supporting struggling urban schools.

That's true - but voucher proponents care about helping struggling urban students who would like a chance to succeed at a nicer school - not about helping the struggling urban schools. This is why former D.C. school super Michelle Rhee now supports vouchers. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/04/michelle-rhee-my-break-with-the-democrats.html#

But I don't expect a socialist such as yourself to understand the merit of that difference. Hard as it is to believe, many socialists, such as yourself, really believe that even if kids and their parents want a better opportunity, they must be sacrificed and remain caged in their horrible urban public schools because it would only further hurt the school to set them free.

I think those parents and students already have plenty of opportunity and should just work harder. We don't need to spend tax dollars to make education worse for thousands of students so hundreds of students can go to a different school.

[MakeItRain]

School vouchers does the opposite of supporting struggling urban schools.

That's true - but voucher proponents care about helping struggling urban students who would like a chance to succeed at a nicer school - not about helping the struggling urban schools. This is why former D.C. school super Michelle Rhee now supports vouchers. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/04/michelle-rhee-my-break-with-the-democrats.html#

But I don't expect a socialist such as yourself to understand the merit of that difference. Hard as it is to believe, many socialists, such as yourself, really believe that even if kids and their parents want a better opportunity, they must be sacrificed and remain caged in their horrible urban public schools because it would only further hurt the school to set them free.

Wanting kids to go to schools in their own neighborhoods instead of having up to a 90 minute commute to go to a good school is socialist. Interesting. I would have thought a socialists would want suburban and exurban kids to be shipped to schools in the city. Who knew

[sonofdaxjones]

Wow, state of NY spends nearly $20K per student, but they hover around the middle of the pack in the various state education rankings.

But the answer for "fixing" schools is always, "more money".

[Rage Against the McKee]

Wow, state of NY spends nearly $20K per student, but they hover around the middle of the pack in the various state education rankings.

But the answer for "fixing" schools is always, "more money".

Everything costs more in NY.

[sonofdaxjones]

Wow, state of NY spends nearly $20K per student, but they hover around the middle of the pack in the various state education rankings.

But the answer for "fixing" schools is always, "more money".

Everything costs more in NY.

That doesn't really mean anything.

[CNS]

Wow, state of NY spends nearly $20K per student, but they hover around the middle of the pack in the various state education rankings.

But the answer for "fixing" schools is always, "more money".

Everything costs more in NY.

That doesn't really mean anything.

How much of that is facilities? then adjust salaries for location.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Wow, state of NY spends nearly $20K per student, but they hover around the middle of the pack in the various state education rankings.

But the answer for "fixing" schools is always, "more money".

Everything costs more in NY.

That doesn't really mean anything.

Teachers and administrators have to be paid more. Property costs more. It means a lot, really.

[MakeItRain]

Wow, state of NY spends nearly $20K per student, but they hover around the middle of the pack in the various state education rankings.

But the answer for "fixing" schools is always, "more money".

Everything costs more in NY.

That doesn't really mean anything.

It absolutely does, that $20,000 isn't adjusted for cost of living, everything is more expensive in New York. It was a poor example.

To your larger point, everyone believes that most states and districts with education issues could spend the money they have better.

[sonofdaxjones]

No, not "Everyone" believes that MIR, not even close.   The blanket statement by many when asked, is "more money".   Not more efficency, not better administration, simply "more money".

NY is 43% above the national avg on spending per pupil, we're talking the entire state of NY, not just NYC.

Typical State Education Rank for NY around 20th.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

School vouchers does the opposite of supporting struggling urban schools.

That's true - but voucher proponents care about helping struggling urban students who would like a chance to succeed at a nicer school - not about helping the struggling urban schools. This is why former D.C. school super Michelle Rhee now supports vouchers. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/04/michelle-rhee-my-break-with-the-democrats.html#

But I don't expect a socialist such as yourself to understand the merit of that difference. Hard as it is to believe, many socialists, such as yourself, really believe that even if kids and their parents want a better opportunity, they must be sacrificed and remain caged in their horrible urban public schools because it would only further hurt the school to set them free.

Wanting kids to go to schools in their own neighborhoods instead of having up to a 90 minute commute to go to a good school is socialist. Interesting. I would have thought a socialists would want suburban and exurban kids to be shipped to schools in the city. Who knew

No, the urban schools don't want the kids from the suburbs, just the money from the suburbs. And your "we're all in this together" philosophy of requring kids to attend shitty schools lest the shitty schools suffer more if the motivated students flee is absolutely socialist.