Why, God, Why are you taking this class? Bad Students Redux

Sometimes bad students get through school because somebody likes them. There was a student at the school I work for who was failing and wasn't going to graduate, but the principal felt sorry for the little shit poor little dear and changed his grades. Unfortunately for her, she had the guidance tech do it for her, and the guidance tech came to me, since I'm her union representative, and told me about it in order to cover her ass, and I took the information to my father, who was on the school board.

The student didn't graduate, and the principal got demoted.

007bistromath wrote:

Tungsten Monk wrote:

Obama.

(Sorry, 007, the setup was too good. :D)

Sorry for what? He's a fascist just like the rest of them. :hmm:

Speaking of someone who obviously flunked Political Science 101...

(And before you get snarky on me, my B.A. is in Political Science with a specialization in comparative government and political theory.)

Lady Anne wrote:

Sometimes bad students get through school because somebody likes them. There was a student at the school I work for who was failing and wasn't going to graduate, but the principal felt sorry for the little shit poor little dear and changed his grades. Unfortunately for her, she had the guidance tech do it for her, and the guidance tech came to me, since I'm her union representative, and told me about it in order to cover her ass, and I took the information to my father, who was on the school board.

My sister's a high school English teacher, and she had a similar experience. She had a student that was dramatically failing her English class (and just her class), and was on the verge of not graduating.

His parents came down and used the magic word ("lawsuit") claiming that their son had a learning disability (that somehow only affected him with respect to his English class).

The solution? His entire English requirement (including a year-long project) was waived and he was allowed to graduate.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Speaking of someone who obviously flunked Political Science 101...

(And
before you get snarky on me, my B.A. is in Political Science with a
specialization in comparative government and political theory.)

Screw your degree, man. If you don't realize that the big players these days are all fascists, you don't know what the word means. It's not all jackboots and jewbakes. The US federal government has had statist, corporatist, authoritarian scum at the reins of both parties for decades.

PS: while the kid in your story was likely a lazy jerkoff, it is also possible that he had dyslexia or some other legit disability and still managed to struggle through everything that wasn't actually about making words happen correctly.

PPS: Jackboots & Jewbakes seems like it should be the name of a dark humor WWII RPG system.

007bistromath wrote:

Screw your degree, man. If you don't realize that the big players these days are all fascists, you don't know what the word means. It's not all jackboots and jewbakes. The US federal government has had statist, corporatist, authoritarian scum at the reins of both parties for decades.

You don't know what the word means. What you describe is Nazism, which is a subset of fascism but not the whole thing (just like Stalinism is not all of Communism is not all of Socialism). They are not equal, because there are as many variants of fascism as there are variants of Communism, Democracy, Democratic Republics, and Monarchies.

If you believe that the Democratic Party (being left-center or center) is somehow fascist, then you are the dumbest fucking moron on the face of this or any other planet.

6/10

Trolling is fairly convincing, but not particularly imaginative.

I am explicitly not talking specifically about Nazism. The comment you're referring to was meant to indicate recognition that the reason people generally refuse to put the label "fascism" on anything modern is because the main example they know of it is Nazism, and so they think using the word "fascism" is an auto-Godwin.

It is not. Statism, corporatism, and authoritarianism are the defining features of fascism, and all three of those for shit sure sound to me like pretty good ways of describing the US federal government at this point. The Democrats and Republicans each work at different parts of the agenda, but the places where they disagree to the point of intractable shitfits and obnoxious soundbites are always over points that are conveniently unimportant to fascist power creep. Whenever you see members of the two "opposing" parties shaking hands over something, it's a sure sign that civil liberties are being destroyed to glorious fanfare.

007bistromath wrote:

hurr durr hurr
Whenever you see members of the two "opposing" parties shaking hands over something, it's a sure sign that civil liberties are being destroyed to glorious fanfare.

I'm starting to think you are just dead wrong on everything ever.

007bistromath wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I SWEAR I SAW YOUR ASS TALK

007bistromath wrote:

It is not. Statism, corporatism, and authoritarianism are the defining features of fascism, and all three of those for shit sure sound to me like pretty good ways of describing the US federal government at this point.

You are so wrong that to even begin to describe how wrong you are would have me here until well into next week, and I really don't have the inclination to spend that much time educating an idiot.

Spotts1701 wrote:

007bistromath wrote:

It is not. Statism, corporatism, and authoritarianism are the defining features of fascism, and all three of those for shit sure sound to me like pretty good ways of describing the US federal government at this point.

You are so wrong that to even begin to describe how wrong you are would have me here until well into next week, and I really don't have the inclination to spend that much time educating an idiot.

NO SPOTTS YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG AND I AM ALWAYS RIGHT DESPITE THE FACTS YOU MAY SPOUT ONLY MY NONSENSICAL BELIEFS ARE CORRECT ALWAYS.

POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS NO ONE KNOWS POLITICS LIKE MEEEEEEEEEEEE

If you're not even going to try, then fuck you. I've yet to see one person around here do anything but tell me I'm stupid as opposed to actually arguing the point. The fact that we currently remain better off than China is not proof that the federal government is properly obeying the founders' constraints. We live in an age in which we cannot help but be controlled by mass media, because we have to deal with numbers too large and concepts too complex for anyone to verify. The people in charge, rich as fuck and devoted only to prolonging their careers, make deals with one another to manipulate the fuck out of it, and if they didn't, we wouldn't know the goddamn difference, because the petty bullshit that passes for political discourse today is indistinguishable from a farce put on for our amusement. All that is needed is for some of the people in the highest levels of government to have this agenda, and it will happen automatically, because anyone with any other agenda is a variable as controllable as the people watching at home. I feel it is most definitely the reality now, but even if it's not, it could be, and we'd have absolutely no way of knowing, which is enough of a problem by itself to say that the system is wholly corrupt. Our choices are to revert to the city-state model, or to continue our slide into the role of wholly interchangeable and dispensible chattel.

007bistromath wrote:

If you're not even going to try, then fuck you. I've yet to see one person around here do anything but tell me I'm stupid as opposed to actually arguing the point.

I tried arguing the point. You won't listen, and the fact that you spout Tenther bullshit tells me that trying to talk to you is a waste of my breath.

You're telling me Senator Russ Feingold (who's the most liberal Democrat in the Senate and campaigns for public financing of elections and the abolition of the Patriot Act) is in on this? That Bernie Sanders (the only true Socialist in the entire Congress) is in on this?

That's just beyond stupid.

007bistromath wrote:

If you're not even going to try, then fuck you. I've yet to see one person around here do anything but tell me I'm stupid as opposed to actually arguing the point.

Hey remember this thread when you were both stupid and wrong.

And what's the point of arguing with you when you've proven yourself to be absolutely stubborn in the face of the truth and facts while you just puke your worthless opinion all over this fucking forum.

Here, learn the difference.

Spotts1701 wrote:

You're telling me Senator Russ Feingold (who's the most liberal Democrat in the Senate and campaigns for public financing of elections and the abolition of the Patriot Act) is in on this? That Bernie Sanders (the only true Socialist in the entire Congress) is in on this?

That's just beyond stupid.

I'm telling you that anyone who is meaningfully different from "moderate" is meaningless to the real process, because they have to follow the party line, which is determined by "moderates," or they will quickly lose favor in their party and/or be replaced for being ineffectual. The government is constantly gaining more power no matter who's arguing for it because the American public is stupid as fuck and gets upset when it doesn't see things happening, failing totally to realize that the best thing the government ever does is sit on its hands.

Mafiosa: nobody proved me wrong in that thread. I talked about the bill using the text right in front of my own face, and the best anyone here could bring in support of their argument was something that was tangentially-related at best. You and Spotts are the most eloquent examples of Stone Deaf I've ever seen.

007bistromath wrote:

Mafiosa: nobody proved me wrong in that thread. I talked about the bill using the text right in front of my own face, and the best anyone here could bring in support of their argument was something that was tangentially-related at best. You and Spotts are the most eloquent examples of Stone Deaf I've ever seen.

Quote :

Hilariously, "network" is explicitly defined in the bill specifically as the National Research and Education Network established by a law enacted in 1996, despite that having nothing to do with anything. Legislators don't read anything these days, it seems.

Quote :

A national research and education network (NREN) is a specialized internet service provider dedicated to supporting the needs of the research and education communities within a country.

It is usually distinguished by support for a high-speed backbone network, often offering dedicated channels for individual research projects.

NRENs are usually the places where new Internet protocols are introduced before deployment within the Internet. Two examples of these protocols are IPv6 and IP multicast.

Haha, dude you are such a fucknut. Penguin take your friend back to wherever you found him.

So... what? Bringing it up again makes it make sense this time? How do you accomplish that deep magic? Maybe say it a few more times and the ghost of FDR might pop out of your bathroom mirror and give you a bunch of money.

007bistromath wrote:

I talked about the bill using the text right in front of my own face, and the best anyone here could bring in support of their argument was something that was tangentially-related at best. You and Spotts are the most eloquent examples of Stone Deaf I've ever seen.

And you are a perfect example of a person who knows absolutely fucking nothing about government, the law, or politics.

The only stone deaf person around here is you, and if you had any sense in that thick melon of yours you would walk away right now.

I've spent years studying this - I've lived it, breathed it. I've forgotten more about it than you've ever known. And I don't need some pissant Paultard coming in here and telling me I don't know thing one about the government.

Start with the fact that Sanders isn't in any party. He's an independent that caucuses with the Democrats. He served 14 years in the House, and while he clashed with the leadership not once did they put up a strong candidate against him. He has major and powerful positions on the Senate Budget Committee, the Senate Veteran's Affairs Committee, and the HELP Committee (despite being a vocal advocate of single-payer system).

Feingold, meanwhile, is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and a top deputy whip (despite his well-known status as someone who will challenge the party whenever he feels he must). He's a vocal critic of "corporate welfare", of Senators voting themselves pay raises (he's returned every single one of his since he was elected in 1993), and of pork barrel spending. Again, he's never had a serious challenger from within the party.

These are the two most "maverick" members of the Democratic Caucus, and they've never been censured or punished by that same caucus for going "off the reservation" when they feel they must.

Now in the House, you have at least 40 members who are far-left (Dennis Kucinich of Illinois being the most well-known). None of them have been publicly flogged by the party for refusing to toe the party line. In fact, many of them voted against the TARP program because of their political ideology, and didn't suffer retribution.

And it still fucking passed, didn't it? And giant bills with giant numbers on them that everyone seems to hate for some reason or other seem to just have a tendency of doing that eventually, don't they?

It happens that I have had discussions basically identical to this with my father, a dyed in the wool Republican who still likes to pretend he's a Libertarian sometimes. He's fallen into the same trap you have. He points to a few names in the Republican party as some kind of proof that they're the ones defending us from those fascists in the Democratic party. It's such a joke every single time. Almost all of them are frauds who give good speech. I look at their voting records, at their campaign contributors, at their extracurricular activities, and with few exceptions, what I find is a neocon turncoat who pays lip service to actual fiscal conservative ideas. The Democrats are no different. There are (maybe, we can only hope) a few true believers, but they don't matter, because they are vastly outnumbered by the Hillary Clintons and shit, who make all kinds of talk about various reforms and protections but actually just keep voting for more horseshit. The true believers don't get iced, because most of the time, they aren't a threat. They are, in fact, an essential part of the machine. You can't keep people from ignoring the hand that's pulling rabbits if you don't have the fringe guys out there polarizing the shit out of everyone over things that completely don't matter, and maintaining the adoration of the party's faithful by voting with their conscience on bills that are undefeatable anyway.

So what's the answer, O Wise One? Burn it all to the ground?

That kind of talk is even more annoying - we can't fix it, so we should completely destroy it (despite the fact that the collateral damage from such an action would be tremendous, both in blood and treasure).

Sorry, doesn't cut ice with me pal.

Spotts wrote:

(And before you get snarky on me, my B.A. is in Political Science with a specialization in comparative government and political theory.)

No wonder you're unemployed.

Mafiosa wrote:

007bistromath wrote:

hurr durr hurr
Whenever you see members of the two "opposing" parties shaking hands over something, it's a sure sign that civil liberties are being destroyed to glorious fanfare.

I'm starting to think you are just dead wrong on everything ever.

Well, he has something of a point. If the Democrats and Republicans ever agree on something, it's either a really good idea or a really, really bad idea.

Spotts1701 wrote:

So what's the answer, O Wise One? Burn it all to the ground?

What would you honestly suggest as an alternative? We can't vote these people out. They control, at minimum, which candidates are viable. That's the whole purpose of all media in the first place. Just considering the political machine itself it is nigh impossible to hack through, and that's before considering the two other things in play.

1) Follow the money. You're not even allowed to pretend to vote for the guys who run GE, Lockheed-Martin, or Pfizer, and they are ultimately responsible for determining who the political parties put up front, and how the media will quell any meaningful third party movement.

2) The election process can't even be trusted anyway. The whole thing's been gerrymandered all to hell since long before these troubles, the numbers are so big and the competition so choked with pageantry that somebody could just make some shit up and nobody would know the difference, and now electronic voting is gaining traction. A few states, thank god, have better sense than that, but once it starts getting used on a regular basis in federal elections, no reasonable person can possibly say democracy isn't dead. Those machines can be corrupted with a thought, and might be by design, and forensic experts are required to detect such fraud, assuming they're even allowed to check, since Diebold does everything it can to make sure the source code for the fuckers stays out of court.

The "political process" in this nation amounts to a grand theater of misdirection. The parties become more and more alike while fighting ever more bitterly and shrilly about things that don't seriously affect policy whatsoever, polarizing the people so they're too busy frothing to think. It's the circus they put on for us so we don't notice them stealing our bread.

I do, in fact, believe that the only way out of this mess is to dismantle the federal government. I am under no illusion that it will happen anytime soon, but in ten years or so, things will have probably gotten worse, so we'll just have to see who's right then. Even if it began today or years ago, it seems to me that the cost in blood and treasure cannot be considered as prohibitive. We're already grinding ourselves to paste on the other side of the earth, and we're already barreling down the path towards being wholly owned and operated by China. We shouldn't cry about destroying "the most powerful nation in the world" if we've already pissed away that title because of traitors at the top who want to institute world plutocracy by doing whatever European banks think is a good idea.

So, I see we're all still on course.

By the way, nice avatar Mikey. I like the sparkles.

Dude, I leave for the weekend and when I come back, my topic's turned into Loony Conspiracy Theories. Good to see some things don't change.

My teacher checked out the miscreant in question, and it turns out it was an error of our ancient computer system rather than deliberate idiocy. I feel kind of bad for the false alarm, but given the track record for my school...

My cousin is currently studying animal keeping and they have classes on cows, pigs, sheeps and other farm animals as well as on pets. Things may get quite messy sometimes, since cows especially aren't the most clean animals in the world. They have nominated a cow for each of the students and they are expected to take care of them(feed them, brush them, clean up their faeces etc).

Well there's this girl who comes to the cowhouse dressed up in white clothes, uses high heels and has fingernails as long as wolverine's. She keeps complaining how smelly and dirty the cows are. She constantly keeps on demanding that she wants to take care of school's hamsters and cats.

We haven't quite figured out how the hell she had decided to attend a school that's named as "Farming institute". They even had to take a passing exam for the school and they were immediately told that at least half of the studies are about farm animals.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]