Brothahorn's Conservative Thread

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

All of this. Systematic, and across the board. And if you don’t think that fucked Black people for generations to come, you’re really shitty at economics.
And that’s what terrifies white middle and lower class America: that maybe, just maybe, black folks etc will be coming for what they should have had all along...equal opportunity in housing, education, etc.

No it doesn't.  Nice guess though... paint with a narrower brush.

Equal opportunity is the farthest thing from the minds of people seeking "social justice" right now.  If they were serious, they'd be addressing education and the expectations of how families are raised; in addition to the obvious corrections needed with regard to law enforcement.

Equal opportunity should be a motivating factor for all of us; but keep on painting everyone with your own hatred.

Edited July 21, 2020 by slorch

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

Not sure why it has to be an discussion on whether its racism vs. a system against poor people, can't it be both which places an additional burden on many minorities? And without a doubt, the American system creates a success path for everyone, but it's naive to think that path is the same width for everyone.

Median wealth tells me that something negative occurs with Hispanic and Black families. If an alien landed on Earth and saw this graph, the only answers are that either Blacks or Hispanics are broadly unable to achieve success/bad with money or something is keeping them from succeeding with wealth. At the macro level, something is holding many families back. And yes, I agree many poor white families are also held back. (too be clear, I believe all are equally capable of succeeding.)

On the good news, it's not as bad as it used to be. Bad news, it's not as good as it could be. On the positive front, everyone has access to almost every learning opportunity now. Have a bad teacher or parent not willing or able to help the student? Check out google or youtube. I don't know if teachers are quick to instruct students to search youtube for math questions but that would be my first stop.

I'm hopeful that next generations are going to improve their education with internet access. Now there are still kids falling through the cracks. And sadly there will always be some. There is not a magic formula to improve the situation for all overnight. Incremental improvements should be the goal and big improvements will occur at times.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Pancho 44860]

12 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- I wasn’t meaning to imply that you said systematic racism- but that’s being thrown around a lot. I think the system, generally, is set up to advantage the haves, disadvantage the have nots and keep everyone in their lane. Minorities are mostly have nots and the system grounds them up at times, but I don’t think that’s because they are minorities, more I think that’s how the system works. 
I went to UT. I went to a top 20 law school  I had classmates that were minorities that got in because of affirmative action and they were... mostly like me!  I don’t see a hand up for the poor kid from Appalachia or Hicksville Texas who is disadvantaged. I see hands up for upper middle class blacks and that doesn’t make sense to me from a “who should get the benefit of the doubt” standpoint. Because I see it as a class struggle more than a race struggle from an institutional perspective. 
I have recalibrated my opinions, somewhat, with the Trump administration because it’s clear that there is more going on there than I’d have thought, but I don’t think it’s systematic 

Like I said, I could well be wrong. 

Unless you where in the admissions office, you don’t know if they got in only because of affirmative action.

thas an assumption and pretty offensive if you think that way unless there’s more here.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The disparity between black and white veterans in regards to the GI Bill was huge.

That single piece of legislation catapulted millions of families into the ranks of the middle then upper class.

But only white ones.

This plus busing after the Civil Rights Act passed was the driver towards the demise of countless schools. You want to talk about protesting? Whew, that (busing) was some protesting. A Gallup poll from 1981 has 60% of African Americans in favor of busing to aid integration and only 17% of white Americans in favor. Court ordered busing affected fewer than 5% of the nation's schools and voluntary busing became weaker and weaker especially after the Supreme Court ruling (2007) which "limited the ways in which districts could promote desegregation."

 

Like a lot of things, it is multi-layered and complicated, but the racism is consistent.

One thing that certain parents in our school district like (we have a charter school that opened several years ago) is that parents have to provide transportation to this charter school. This school is located in THE whitest part of town, there is no public transportation for children to get to this school, and it requires uniforms etc. So once the application hurdle is overcome, the rest of the hurdles are no picnic. The demographics for this school are very unlike the demographics for the public school district. This school opened after the district had worked to make all campuses reflect the demographics of the city, which is increasingly not white.

 

 

Link to quote above: https://www.history.com/news/desegregation-busing-schools

Edited July 21, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
Edit-left out a few words

[TXSG8R 3362]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

True on far too many economic points.  Dad yelling at the kid to do his homework is at least a guy trying to be involved in the process.

Waiting for Superman was a sobering film to take in, and illustrates how too many public school systems are not there for kids at all.  Our system is broken in 2 places in the home, and at the school house admin. building.

The admin thing is interesting.  Do you mean school admin or district?  I never really understood the amount of work school admin's did until my wife got to that level.  She spent 12 hours a day, 5 days a week doing that job.  The main reason?  Parents.  She had to get to work 2 hours early every day to get as much work done as possible before having to deal with kid discipline and parents.  After school she had to wait while some parent was late/MIA picking up a kid, or hunting down a kid that didn't come home because they got off the bus and ghosted to a friends house, or just didn't want to go home to their own shit hole.  Her school had 3 APs and a principal for a student pop of a little over 900.  They rotated duties, but even on the days she didn't have discipline, if a kid had to be restrained, she would be involved.  She has lost entire days having to babysit kids in her office waiting on a parent to show up and take a violent kid.  On the days she wasn't doing discipline she was dealing with ARD prep, or getting kids tested for 504 plans, or sitting in ARD hearings all day, or a bunch of other shit.  Four administrators sounds like a lot for one elementary school, but I can tell you, there wasn't much fat there.  They were treading water.  

My wife is district admin now, first year on the job.  Its definitely less work, and with COVID, substantially less work since she took a logistical/testing coordinator position.  Outside of that formal position she was also in charge of the homeless program for the district (things are getting shuffled for next year and that work is being shifted to someone else and she is picking up other informal duties).  Budget, planning, everything.  It being her first year, I haven't learned much about if this district is bloated or lean, so I cant give much of an informed opinion there yet.  I can talk a little about her former district though.  

KISD spends like $400 million a year.  Its fairly big.  Their budget https://www.killeenisd.org/UserFiles/files/FY2018BudgetBrochure.pdf

This is their org chart.  https://www.killeenisd.org/Organization_Chart

That really doesn't look bloated when you look at the money they are managing, and the # of employees and kids they are in charge of (~3k teachers and 45k students).  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

12 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Unless you where in the admissions office, you don’t know if they got in only because of affirmative action.

thas an assumption and pretty offensive if you think that way unless there’s more here.

 

Agree if someone is catching themselves trying to spot who doesn't belong in the room, that person needs to reassess their point of view. I imagine they would strenuously disagree but that is the definition of bias.

[Dahobbs 17625]

17 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Unless you where in the admissions office, you don’t know if they got in only because of affirmative action.

thas an assumption and pretty offensive if you think that way unless there’s more here.

 

And frankly it is also a strange assumption given his description. He didn't get in via affirmative action, so I'm a bit confused what qualities of those "mostly like" him indicated that affirmative action was their only route to admittance. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

The admin thing is interesting.  Do you mean school admin or district?  I never really understood the amount of work school admin's did until my wife got to that level.  She spent 12 hours a day, 5 days a week doing that job.  The main reason?  Parents.  She had to get to work 2 hours early every day to get as much work done as possible before having to deal with kid discipline and parents.  After school she had to wait while some parent was late/MIA picking up a kid, or hunting down a kid that didn't come home because they got off the bus and ghosted to a friends house, or just didn't want to go home to their own shit hole.  Her school had 3 APs and a principal for a student pop of a little over 900.  They rotated duties, but even on the days she didn't have discipline, if a kid had to be restrained, she would be involved.  She has lost entire days having to babysit kids in her office waiting on a parent to show up and take a violent kid.  On the days she wasn't doing discipline she was dealing with ARD prep, or getting kids tested for 504 plans, or sitting in ARD hearings all day, or a bunch of other shit.  Four administrators sounds like a lot for one elementary school, but I can tell you, there wasn't much fat there.  They were treading water.  

My wife is district admin now, first year on the job.  Its definitely less work, and with COVID, substantially less work since she took a logistical/testing coordinator position.  Outside of that formal position she was also in charge of the homeless program for the district (things are getting shuffled for next year and that work is being shifted to someone else and she is picking up other informal duties).  Budget, planning, everything.  It being her first year, I haven't learned much about if this district is bloated or lean, so I cant give much of an informed opinion there yet.  I can talk a little about her former district though.  

KISD spends like $400 million a year.  Its fairly big.  Their budget https://www.killeenisd.org/UserFiles/files/FY2018BudgetBrochure.pdf

This is their org chart.  https://www.killeenisd.org/Organization_Chart

That really doesn't look bloated when you look at the money they are managing, and the # of employees and kids they are in charge of (~3k teachers and 45k students).  

District or regional doesn't really matter in some cases. Our capitol city has a graduation rate of 76%, worst in the whole state, and has the highest paid school admins.  Something's wrong there.  It also has a lot of section 8 housing which gets back to parents, and involvement because so many aren't, can't or won't be involved or simply aren't even there.  It's a cy;ce that needs to be broken somehow, but that's a generational, economic, and societal change.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

District or regional doesn't really matter in some cases. Our capitol city has a graduation rate of 76%, worst in the whole state, and has the highest paid school admins.  Something's wrong there.  It also has a lot of section 8 housing which gets back to parents, and involvement because so many aren't, can't or won't be involved or simply aren't even there.  It's a cy;ce that needs to be broken somehow, but that's a generational, economic, and societal change.  

I think it's overly simplistic to say that a low graduation rate should disqualify a highly paid administration. One, you should want to attract the best talent to lead that district(s). Two, you can't evaluate every statewide administrator on the same goal. I would think the goal should be short term small improvements, and building the foundation for longer term, higher success.

I could build an argument that the school district with the highest graduation rate, should pay their admin the least. Most likely they have better foundations (teachers, facilities, parents) than the under-achieving district. That successful administration has a much different job, and perhaps easier (not say easy) in some respects.

With that being said, just paying someone a high salary doesn't magically create improvements. That person should be held to high standards and given the resources to succeed. If they don't, move them out.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I think it's overly simplistic to say that a low graduation rate should disqualify a highly paid administration. One, you should want to attract the best talent to lead that district(s). Two, you can't evaluate every statewide administrator on the same goal. I would think the goal should be short term small improvements, and building the foundation for longer term, higher success.

I could build an argument that the school district with the highest graduation rate, should pay their admin the least. Most likely they have better foundations (teachers, facilities, parents) than the under-achieving district. That successful administration has a much different job, and perhaps easier (not say easy) in some respects.

With that being said, just paying someone a high salary doesn't magically create improvements. That person should be held to high standards and given the resources to succeed. If they don't, move them out.

I'd say highly achieving school districts probably make it easier on admins.  I'd say continually failing systems, and no changes make highly paid admins over paid.

[TXSG8R 3362]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'd say highly achieving school districts probably make it easier on admins.  I'd say continually failing systems, and no changes make highly paid admins over paid.

There is a lot of inertia to overcome with bad schools or districts, and some of it is truly impossible to overcome for many of the reasons that started this conversation.  High poverty areas almost always leads to worse schools.  Poverty goes hand in hand with shitty/missing parents, high drop-out rates, etc.  You can churn through quality educators and admins in that environment and not really solve much when you look at the larger metrics.  You aren't going to solve education without solving the larger economic problems for those areas.  Its also difficult to compensate around performance metrics, because performance is hard to quantify in schools most of the time.  There are obviously shitty teachers and admins that should be pushed out of the system, but there are also good ones that have to work in environments where they will never meet certain thresholds due to environmental issues that are beyond their control.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

There is a lot of inertia to overcome with bad schools or districts, and some of it is truly impossible to overcome for many of the reasons that started this conversation.  High poverty areas almost always leads to worse schools.  Poverty goes hand in hand with shitty/missing parents, high drop-out rates, etc.  You can churn through quality educators and admins in that environment and not really solve much when you look at the larger metrics.  You aren't going to solve education without solving the larger economic problems for those areas.  Its also difficult to compensate around performance metrics, because performance is hard to quantify in schools most of the time.  There are obviously shitty teachers and admins that should be pushed out of the system, but there are also good ones that have to work in environments where they will never meet certain thresholds due to environmental issues that are beyond their control.  

Yep again which means it goes back to parents being able to, and wanting to be involved. It's no coincidence middle, and upper class kids perform better as a group for a host of socio economic seasons alone.

[workswithseed 2112]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have no way of knowing how my grandfather treated his sharecroppers.  But, he was a kind man, and liberal, and the fact that my grandparents maintained a lifelong relationship with one sharecropper family, that was black, leads me to believe that he was fair.

Because my parents waited to have a kid until their 40s, I was unable to know my grandparents at that level.

I should ask if by liberal, you mean classical use, or how it's used today. I'm guessing the first one.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

37 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'd say highly achieving school districts probably make it easier on admins.  I'd say continually failing systems, and no changes make highly paid admins over paid.

The superintendent for AISD gets around $311,000 for an enrollment of 80,000 plus.

The superintendent for Highland Park ISD in Dallas receives $320,000 for an enrollment of 6,840.

So, are they both over paid? Neither? One?

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

15 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep again which means it goes back to parents being able to, and wanting to be involved. It's no coincidence middle, and upper class kids perform better as a group for a host of socio economic seasons alone.

Yep, but society can't count on parents when they're from a cycle of failing to do so. We can't write-off kids because their parents cannot or will not take an active role. 

[Pancho 44860]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

If they were serious, they'd be addressing education and the expectations of how families are raised; in addition to the obvious corrections needed with regard to law enforcement.

 

 

How do you know they and others aren't?  Have you done your research here or are you just assuming as well?

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

How do you know they and others aren't?  Have you done your research here or are you just assuming as well?

I was going by the message being shared on national media outlets and focal points of alleged advocacy groups.

That's a big piece of what drives my frustration.  What I hear the national people constantly chirping about tends to vary greatly from what my co-workers/ friends/ local folks do and say.  I could be wrong for sure...

Edited July 21, 2020 by slorch

[Anastasis 23475]

On 7/12/2020 at 12:58 AM, Anastasis said:

Curious that in these times of appropriate reflection on the racist history of American institutions, Planned parenthood has managed to fly right under the radar. 

Not so fast...

Appears that they are managing to address the founders past without deflecting about WEB Du Bois. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/nyregion/planned-parenthood-margaret-sanger-eugenics.html

Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics

The group will remove the reproductive-rights pioneer’s name from a Manhattan clinic as it reconsiders her views.

 

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York will remove the name of Margaret Sanger, a founder of the national organization, from its Manhattan health clinic because of her “harmful connections to the eugenics movement,” the group said on Tuesday.

Ms. Sanger, a public health nurse who opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in Brooklyn in 1916, has long been lauded as a feminist icon and reproductive-rights pioneer.

But her legacy also includes supporting eugenics, a discredited belief in improving the human race through selective breeding, often targeted at poor people, those with disabilities, immigrants and people of color.

“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color,” Karen Seltzer, the chair of the New York affiliate’s board, said in a statement.

[Bozo_Casanova 26493]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not so fast...

Appears that they are managing to address the founders past without deflecting about WEB Du Bois. 

I think the real question is who is pwnd here.

[Anastasis 23475]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think the real question is who is pwnd here.

I think that the regional affiliate is doing the right thing in acknowledging the legacy of PP.  

[workswithseed 2112]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think the real question is who is pwnd here.

[BradInATX 9208]

10 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yep again which means it goes back to parents being able to, and wanting to be involved. It's no coincidence middle, and upper class kids perform better as a group for a host of socio economic seasons alone.

 

Keep going down this path. You're actually getting there. If you keep thinking about it, then you'll reaiize:

- People learn from their parents before them - those with more affluent and more involved parents typically make better parents.
- This is a perpetual cycle that goes all the way back to slavery.
- Shockingly, slaves and even freed slaves struggled with parental duties as they were unequipped financially and emotionally for it. Due to, you know, the whole slavery thing.
- It is much more difficult to raise children in poverty than in wealth
- Wealth is largely generational, again going back to slavery.

You've sorta started to lead yourself down the path of not being an ignorant piece of shit. Keep going, I'm interested in where this leads. I suspect you're going to jack yourself off in a 360 degree circle where you land back on believing that black parents are intentionally lazy and inferior to white parents, but maybe not.

Edited July 22, 2020 by BradInATX

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, BradInATX said:

 

Keep going down this path. You're actually getting there. If you keep thinking about it, then you'll reaiize:

- People learn from their parents before them - those with more affluent and more involved parents typically make better parents.
- This is a perpetual cycle that goes all the way back to slavery.
- Shockingly, slaves and even freed slaves struggled with parental duties as they were unequipped financially and emotionally for it. Due to, you know, the whole slavery thing.
- It is much more difficult to raise children in poverty than in wealth
- Wealth is largely generational, again going back to slavery.

You've sorta started to lead yourself down the path of not being an ignorant piece of shit. Keep going, I'm interested in where this leads.

You really are an asshole, but I'm sure you get that all the time.

Oh yeah Hey tell yer mom the penicillin seemed to work.  She might wanna get that issue taken care of it'll start affecting her business.

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You really are an asshole,

Guilty. I'm at peace with it.

Edited July 22, 2020 by BradInATX

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Guilty. I'm at peace with it.

You really shouldn't be, people around you have to endure it.  Say hi to your mom asshole.

[workswithseed 2112]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You really shouldn't be, people around you have to endure it.  Say hi to your mom asshole.

His mom's asshole, or his mom, asshole? 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, workswithseed said:

His mom's asshole, or his mom, asshole? 

He's an asshole for sure.  I steer clear of his moms asshole.

[TwiceHorn 31498]

11 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I should ask if by liberal, you mean classical use, or how it's used today. I'm guessing the first one.

Huge FDR fan.

[workswithseed 2112]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Huge FDR fan.

He was for da roads, huh? Ha

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Trump voter- I have sex with his mom! I wouldn't have sex with his mom!

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Trump voter- I have sex with his mom! I wouldn't have sex with his mom!

 

Bundy, has no reading compression, you do it well, and often.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Bundy, has no reading compression, you do it well, and often.

I'm all ears to hear you explain your comedy premise, speed bag.

[clapclapclap 9000]

If you missed yesterday's House show trial, here's about all you need to know:

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by clapclapclap

[Captainant 27680]

45 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

If you missed yesterday's House show trial, here's about all you need to know:

 

 

 

I agree that the dems did themselves and government accountability a disservice yesterday, the hearing was a complete clown fiesta. That said, Barr refused to answer yes/no questions and would equivocate and filibuster all of the time if given an opportunity. 

I do think that nadler is a garbage, shit-tier chairman who cannot control that committee. He really fucked up in not permitting Barr to respond to questions and/or rebut statements against him, which is the norm for committee hearings.

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

On 7/29/2020 at 9:32 AM, clapclapclap said:

If you missed yesterday's House show trial, here's about all you need to know:

 

 

 

 

Well, how many of those 55 cut off answers were not really answers?

So, no, that's not about all I really need to know.

 

 

[Wulaw Horn 19116]

On 7/21/2020 at 9:36 AM, Pancho said:

Unless you where in the admissions office, you don’t know if they got in only because of affirmative action.

thas an assumption and pretty offensive if you think that way unless there’s more here.

 

On an individual basis?  Of course not. But the numbers are what they are. In the aggregate it’s how it works. They have to publish by demographics and there isn’t equity in the numbers. Asians get massively hosed. Black and Hispanics benefit. 
There is then the additional argument that it’s not beneficial to get into a school that gave you a preference, and this shows up in class rank, generally, but I don’t know how I feel about that argument as the prestige benefit might offset the class rank detriment. 
At any case, if it weren’t true then there wouldn’t be any need for affirmative action, so I don’t really understand where this response is coming from. 
Gladwell has an interesting revisionist history about the LSAT and how it was a great predictor of law school achievement, however if you remove the time constraint from law school exams the advantage essentially disappears. I’d like to see if this would help minority students. It’s be interesting to see it tried on some level and might even more adequately mimic how real world legal work happens.  

[clapclapclap 9000]

The only thing dumber than Trump's pandering pardon is the Marxist Media's predictable hypocritical knee-jerk reaction.   The NYTimes instantly cancels Susan B. Anthony:

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by clapclapclap

[workswithseed 2112]

[Foosters 17858]

 

 

2 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

The only thing dumber than Trump's pandering pardon is the Marxist Media's predictable hypocritical knee-jerk reaction.   The NYTimes instantly cancels Susan B. Anthony:

 

Article was written 8/6.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Foosters

[BradInATX 9208]

41 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

Step 5: Trump supporters incapable of nuance or critical thinking believe that the opposing Trump's blowhardery means believing things like "I'd rather die than take HCQ!!!" or "War is good!!!1111"

 

[Message Board User 12395]

I knew it.

 

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

2 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

I knew it.

 

Without data to support, I'll hypothesize that Rs skew higher on vanity and narcissism on the whole. This makes for shittier citizens but more attractive traitors.

[Rougarou 594]

6 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Without data to support, I'll hypothesize that Rs skew higher on vanity and narcissism on the whole. This makes for shittier citizens but more attractive traitors.

Also, since we are just throwing out random hypothesis, probably wealthier/richer people are viewed and identify as more attractive because a lot of times that attractiveness consciously or unconsciously helps in our society with career and money making. And the attractive conservative people are usually upper middle class, while the ugliest are the poor rural folks who would rather be Russian than Democrat and f your feelings.

Liberals are also a big tent for a bunch of marginalized and not mainstream or status quo, which wouldn’t be normalized as attractive in a Qualtrics survey or whatever this was.

Edited August 22, 2020 by Rougarou

[Nivek 16945]

I knew it.
 

Hollywood vs DC seems to indicate otherwise.

But i am certain that power couple out of st louis makes r’s micro peni hard.

[staboner 4984]

[Catdaddyhorn 3446]

This is a good a place to post this Twitter thread a any

 

 

 

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3446]

 

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3446]

A lot of black Republicans of this phenotype are simply in it for the grift.  

[Ted Lange 16110]

[Satchel 6938]

On 7/29/2020 at 9:32 AM, clapclapclap said:

If you missed yesterday's House show trial, here's about all you need to know:

 

Who do those reps think they are? Trey Gowdey?