Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yeah. because it's impossible for people in a group to be extreme.
WHat are you, retarded?
Texas Deciding What's in Textbooks!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Yeah. because it's impossible for people in a group to be extreme.
WHat are you, retarded?
Socrtease
Verified User
It is very easy to see who is on the Texas Board of Education. Go here. The committee on instruction is 4 to 1 republican. There is ONE Democrat on the committee. These people are not appointed they are elected in partisan elections. Out of the 15 members of the board, only 5 are dems. WIth that kinds of ratio you are sure to get that humans were created from a rib, the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaurs roamed the earth with man.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Or you get the truth. *shrug*
I would, if I was wrong, 80% of these people are connected in some way to the teachers' union. My point was valid.
Your point was wrong. 100% wrong. Seriously. Get a grip.
I think it is particularly funny that you think a case worker for special needs children that is a charter member of Texas Tea Party Republican Women's Club is a teachers' union loyalist. It's hilarious.
Edit: Wrong and stubborn are a terrible combination.
I'd like to see something other than your opinion before I reach the final conclusion about you.
Do you think you can put something up here that isn't laced with the acid of your self-imposed superiority and dubious authority?
Wow. You showed me, there was one person who was a member of the republican women, which doesn't show that she was not a member of a union. One does not mean the other.
Now you are stretching, you were embarrassed because your assumption about my "ignorance" on the subject was exaggerated. I'm sorry about that, but maybe you should be condescending towards people only when you are right and can't be easily shown to be making crap up. 80% of the people on that BOE have a connection to the teachers' union. More than half of them were either former or are current educators... What I said bore out, what you did was simply "ignore" the information that didn't agree with your preconceived notion.
Now that we've both showed where we got our opinion on that subject, why don't we get back to the topic. Do you think it is right that this BOE has this much power over the education of children in New York? How about Florida or South Carolina?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well go there your and see for your self. I posted the link. Damo and Dixie are just simply wrong.
I have shown that this particular woman is a hard-core right-wing Republican. You have asserted that she is a union loyalist without any evidence to support it. In fact, you haven't show that any member of the BOE is a either a union member or union loyalist.
I'm embarrassed for you. Seriously. The Texas BOE has 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats, 6 "educators" and 9 non-"educators." You haven't shown that a single person is even in a teachers' union let alone a union loyaltist. Yet, you claim that 12 of the 15 members (80%) "have a connection to the teachers' union" without any evidence to support the claim whatsoever, and, I would add, you backtrack from you earlier laughable assertion that the Board is "populated by former teachers with a continued and direct loyalty towards a certain union." It's fucking sad.
I already agreed that this BOE has too much power. I'm simply pissing on your stupid and baseless union-bashing party.
Rubbish. I have shown that 80% of the members have some link to the teachers' union. You simply say "republican" and assume that means "no union". You are wrong.
Now, again we've both shown how we reached our opinion. Yours is based on assumption and a strong hope that I wouldn't actually know what I was talking about, and mine is based on actual links to the union as evinced by them or their spouse actually being an educator. We'll let others decide who has a stronger case. My guess is that "liberals" who support unions will not want this to be true and so will be on your "side" and just "wish" they were right, like you do here.
And saying it's effing sad doesn't make you sound "more right" it usually means you have run out of ideas.
Excuse me Hoopy?
When I ask you the question, I expect you to answer. Until then?
Go pound salt.
Hilarious. Which 12 of the 15 members members have "some link" to the teachers' union. Even assuming for purposes of argument that 12 of the 15 have "some link" to the teachers' union, how does that substantiate the comment that the BOE is "populated by former teachers with a continued and direct loyalty towards a certain union."
Hilarious. My opinion is based on the fact that only 6 of the 15 members are "educators" which may or may not be members of the teachers' union and, even assuming they are members of the teachers' union, are not union loyalist by virtue of the fact that they are quite obviously hardcore Republicans.
Your position is based on the assumption that anyone who is an actual teacher or "educator" (a special needs case worker and a former private school teacher for children with dyslexia) is therefore a teachers' union loyalist regardless of whether these people are even in a teachers' union and without any indication that if they are members of a teachers' union they are loyalists. Then you assume that anyone married to a teacher or educator is also automatically a teacher's union loyalist regardless of without any eviednce (a) that their spouse is in a teachers' union (b) their spouse is a teachers' union loyalist and (c) regardless of any other affiliations to which the member may be loyal, such as the Republican Party.
As I said, it is sad.
Finally, your assessment ignores the elephant in the room. Tell me friend, who is more likely to try to push the agenda below, teachers' union loyalist or Republican Party hacks:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6581189.html
Actually I listed the two "educators" that you left out, showing 8 were former or current educators. I showed that 3 of those left were recipients of union money for their campaigns for the elected position and that 2 of them were married to union members.
Again, an opinion piece that suggests what you opine about.
My evidence actually links 13 of 15 to the teachers' union. Yours ignores much of what is in their bios so you can pretend that the links don't exist. Of the two left they do not mention what their spouses do for a living, they too might have direct links to the unions either by being a member, married to a member, or recipients of union money for campaigns to these elected positions.
When they are contemplating removing George Washington from the text books, it isn't "right-wing ideology" that we need to worry about. Now that we have again shown how we reached our conclusions, you by ignoring evidence, me by listing it and pointing to why I think what I do, can we get back to the topic?
We agree that these people have too much power, now what can we do about that?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.
In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.
In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."
The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.
The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.
Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.
The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.
In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.
In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."
The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.
The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.
Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.
The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
I was just wondering: do you feel any dumber now that you've seen what they actually changed, and how they voted along strict party lines, 10-5 in favor of CONSERVATIVE changes?
"I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church & state," said a member of the majority (a majority which also managed to put McCarthyism in a more favorable light and cut Thomas Jefferson as a figure whose writings inspired revolutions on the 18th & 19th centuries).
Yeah - some real liberal influence there. I'm sure you'll be just as critical now that the viewpoints being forced on our students are conservative, and not liberal.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I heard that they decided that our form of government will no longer incorrectly be called "democratic" but a "constitutional republic". Awesome. 
Now if we can get the media to correctly call the party of Pelosi, Reid and Obama the Democrat Party.
Now if we can get the media to correctly call the party of Pelosi, Reid and Obama the Democrat Party.