Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

kraychik · July 7, 2012

It is when the outcomes are the same. Or better if you take infant mortality and life expectancy into account. But that probably has more to do with less income inequality and a better social support system.

You're wrong about our system being the most expensive. France, which you tout, and Germany both spend more. And yes, we should look to Europe to improve our healthcare system. Unfortunately the horror show down south about theirs drowns out any possibility of introducing any more private elements into ours for fear of the slippery slope. (Our system is about 70% public, yours is about 50% public)

UNITED STATES: 15.9 pct of GDP, $6,657 per capita

CANADA: 9.7 pct of GDP, $3,430 per capita

Thank you for exposing the economic ignorance of the left. You obviously don't realise that life in Canada is significantly more expensive than in America directly as a consequence of our universal healthcare system. Americans earn about ten percent more on average, pay less taxes on average, while the cost of their goods and services is also substantially cheaper. Perhaps one could argue that this is balanced out with their nearly twice-as-expensive healthcare costs. At least I'm not ignoring the entire context, however, which is what you are doing.

Since this thread is somewhat relevant to education, your post above also serves as a reminded of how the public school system is failing our children in the sense that average Canadians have a very weak grasp of basic economics. We really need to improve education in public schools on this subject, again, evidenced by the economic ignorance you've illustrated with your post above.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

This is a complete mischaracterization of the Tea Party. Thank you for your post, however, because it serves to illustrate the typical ignorance of the leftist Canadian regarding the primary theme of the Tea Party movement. Everyone should take a moment to read this nonsense and realize that this is the narrative describing the Tea Party manufactured by most of the leftist Canadian media outlets. Leftist friends of mine who I spoke to about this over the years told me about how "racist" an "bigoted" and "religious" the Tea Party was, surprise surprise, they all read and watch CBC.

Yes, the radical lefty Argus gets all his news and opinions from the CBC!

It is also a grassroots movement, contrary to your myth of it being an artificial construct of the evil greedy rich elite.

It was in part a real grassroots movement--as Argus already pointed out, beating you to the point.

However, it has been fully co-opted by one of the two most bloated and powerful big-moneyed political parties on Earth...and they are now simply Republicans.

And so, by definition, statists.

It's a reactionary to what they accurately perceive as an assault on their religious values.

Ah, yes, the persecuted Christians theme.

Poster Kimmy has aptly demolished this preposterous nonsense in the Religion threads. You should check it out.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

Tea Party folks that I've spoken to seem to be far more knowledgeable about politics, economics, and their relevant history than you.

Oh sure, it couldn't be, say, a confirmation bias or anything.

It's also rich for an average-at-best individual like yourself to snicker and sneer at Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who I have no doubt are far more intelligent, educated, and accomplished than you'll ever be.

Palin aside, you have plainly never listened to a word Glenn Beck has said. He's a conspiracy theorist, a dunderhead, and...well, he's awfully bloody weepy, isn't he? Poor little fella.

Here's your "intelligent" Glenn Beck; I challenge you, kraychik, to go to the 3:15 mark, and listen for about fifteen seconds.

Go ahead, i dare you!

Your condescension of "they haven't even read Ayn Rand" implies that you have, I suppose?

I suffered through most of Atlas Shrugged, yes.

Aside from being a poorly-written novel (the crucial criteria for...a novel, her "philosophy" aside), it's jaw-droppingly stupid.

Also, she despised conservatives, and not a single conservative fan of hers is aware of it.

But more offensive was her stated admiration for a child-murderer, because for her, "real men" have terrific will and the cojones to carry it out.

so she hated altruists...but admired a child-killer.

I await your defense of this awesome gem of information. (It's freely available and easy to find, should you wish to do so.)

She was a degenerate. And she's a major influence on the so-called "libertarian" movement.

Am I to assume that one cannot understand communism without having read the communist manifesto, according to what you're clearly implying? If I have't read "Atlas Shrugged", can I not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy? Don't worry about answering those two questions, they're simply rhetorical.

Well, your rhetorical question implies you know the answer...but you don't. So I'll tell you.

If one claims to be an Ayn Rand fan, but has never read her...that person is stupid, and has a strong tendency towards servility; they depend on other poeple informing them of what they should think about a primary source which they haven't read.

But then, the Tea-Partiers aren't famous for being too bright, are they? your personal anecdotes about speaking with them notwithstanding.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

kraychik · July 7, 2012

So you think I need a leftist like yourself telling who is an isn't a leftist? Regardless of what you think about Argus, he just parroted the leftist slander of the Tea Party. It was 100% untrue, and I called him on it. All one needs to do is go to the various Tea Party websites, watch Tea Party videos online, or, heaven forbid, actually speak with some Tea Partiers to realize that his narrative (which is all parroted) is completely false.

As far as Christians in America feeling as if their religion is under assault, they have just cause to feel that way. This very thread demonstrates the vitriol of the left, where the subtle Christian element of the Tea Party is falsely described as the primary force of the movement by Argus, who then compares them (and by extension contemporary American Christian denominations) to the Taliban. It's was so hilarious and stupid that I am now using it in my signature as the first in what will eventually be a long list of moronic statements from the left on this board. I'm starting a collection.

Shady · July 7, 2012

So you're critical of the Tea Party mouth-breathers? Finally.

I'm even more critical of the mouth-breathers that insist on unsustainable entitlements without reform.

kraychik · July 7, 2012

Oh sure, it couldn't be, say, a confirmation bias or anything.

Palin aside, you have plainly never listened to a word Glenn Beck has said. He's a conspiracy theorist, a dunderhead, and...well, he's awfully bloody weepy, isn't he? Poor little fella.

Here's your "intelligent" Glenn Beck; I challenge you, kraychik, to go to the 3:15 mark, and listen for about fifteen seconds.

Go ahead, i dare you!

I suffered through most of Atlas Shrugged, yes.

Aside from being a poorly-written novel (the crucial criteria for...a novel, her "philosophy" aside), it's jaw-droppingly stupid.

Also, she despised conservatives, and not a single conservative fan of hers is aware of it.

But more offensive was her stated admiraiton for a child-murderer, because for her, "real men" have terrific will and the cojones to carry it out.

She was a degenerate. And she's a major influence on the so-called "libertarian" movement.

Well, your rhetorical question implies you know the answer...but you don't. So I'll tell you.

If one claims to be an Ayn Rand fan, but has never read her...that person is stupid, and has a strong tendency towards servility; they depend on other poeple informing them of what they should think about a primary source which they haven't read.

But then, the Tea-Partiers aren't famous for being too bright, are they? your personal anecdotes about speaking with them notwithstanding.

I'm familiar with Glenn Beck, and I like him. He's improved a lot since his earlier years of fame. Yes, he engages in hyperbole, and is overly dramatic, but I find the thrust of his leanings agreeable. I'm quite certain I've watched and listened to him far more than you. His new website is also fantastic, as is GBTV.

You want to mock Ayn Rand, while the father of your ideology is Karl Marx, and its real-life implementers are Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Guevara, Mao, Hitler, and Kim Il-Sung. Your slander doesn't work so well when the tables are turned.

You seem to talk a lot about how dumb these people are, or how stupid those people are, I suppose you fancy yourself as intelligent and educated?

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

As far as Christians in America feeling as if their religion is under assault, they have just cause to feel that way.

No they don't. They just cherish the victim status.

It's was so hilarious and stupid that I am now using it in my signature as the first in what will eventually be a long list of moronic statements from the left on this board. I'm starting a collection.

I don't begrudge you your hobby. Enjoy!

kraychik · July 7, 2012

I'm even more critical of the mouth-breathers that insist on unsustainable entitlements without reform.

I don't think bleeding heart can make it through one post without referring to his ideological detractors as stupid. It's the standard (misplaced and ironic) arrogance of the left. They think they're complex, nuanced, and layered whereas conservatives are simplistic brutes. It's funny, and unfortunately for them, I'm now on this board.

Canuckistani · July 7, 2012

Thank you for exposing the economic ignorance of the left. You obviously don't realise that life in Canada is significantly more expensive than in America directly as a consequence of our universal healthcare system. Americans earn about ten percent more on average, pay less taxes on average, while the cost of their goods and services is also substantially cheaper. Perhaps one could argue that this is balanced out with their nearly twice-as-expensive healthcare costs. At least I'm not ignoring the entire context, however, which is what you are doing.

What utter bullshit. Life in Canada is more expensive because of economies of scale. Americans do earn more gross pay on average - what's that got to do with healthcare? Americans don't pay taxes for some of their medical system (Their's is only 50% public, ours is 70%) but employers pay huge amounts to private insurers. To the point that American employers tried to argue that the Canadian system was an unfair subsidy to Canadian business. Think of how much more an American employer could pay their employees if they didn't have to pay those healthcare costs. Think of how much more money and American employee would have in their pocket if they didn't have all those co-pays on their employer supplied insurance.

Since this thread is somewhat relevant to education, your post above also serves as a reminded of how the public school system is failing our children in the sense that average Canadians have a very weak grasp of basic economics. We really need to improve education in public schools on this subject, again, evidenced by the economic ignorance you've illustrated with your post above.

Nice little insult, but it seems you who's just willing to make up economics to suit your bias.

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

.... Think of how much more an American employer could pay their employees if they didn't have to pay those healthcare costs. Think of how much more money and American employee would have in their pocket if they didn't have all those co-pays on their employer supplied insurance.

American employers do not have to pay such costs, but choose to do so as part of a complete benefits package to attract and compete for the best employees.

Shady · July 7, 2012

Think of how much more an American employer could pay their employees if they didn't have to pay those healthcare costs.

If they didn't have to pay for health insurance, they'd have to pay higher taxes to federal and state governments that did it for them. Or are you assuming that taxes would stay the same with the implementation of a single-payer system? :rolleyes:

kraychik · July 7, 2012

What utter bullshit. Life in Canada is more expensive because of economies of scale. Americans do earn more gross pay on average - what's that got to do with healthcare? Americans don't pay taxes for some of their medical system (Their's is only 50% public, ours is 70%) but employers pay huge amounts to private insurers. To the point that American employers tried to argue that the Canadian system was an unfair subsidy to Canadian business. Think of how much more an American employer could pay their employees if they didn't have to pay those healthcare costs. Think of how much more money and American employee would have in their pocket if they didn't have all those co-pays on their employer supplied insurance.

Nice little insult, but it seems you who's just willing to make up economics to suit your bias.

No, it has nothing to do with economies of scale. Especially considering the industries that serve both Canada and America are largely unified/harmonized. You think Costco magically pays more money to bring something to Canada as opposed to the USA? What about WalMart? Maybe Best Buy? What about automobile dealerships who charge ten to twenty percent more for the same vehicle in Canada as opposed to America? What about Amazon.com downloads being cheaper than Amazon.ca download? Considering many of these industries are unified, we should be contributing to the economies of scale considering we buy from the same retailers and manufacturers. Of course that isn't what happens. Canadians earn less, pay more taxes, and pay more for goods and services directly as a consequence of the single-payer healthcare system (there's more to it than that, but this is a primary cause).

Again, thank you for displaying the ignorance of the left towards basic economics.

kraychik · July 7, 2012

If they didn't have to pay for health insurance, they'd have to pay higher taxes to federal and state governments that did it for them. Or are you assuming that taxes would stay the same with the implementation of a single-payer system?

He is demonstrating the ignorance of the left, where they think they can cut pieces of an economy out from the whole and examine it accurately without looking at the broader context. The economic ignorance of the left prevents them from understand that economies are like ecosystems, where all moving parts affect one another directly or indirectly. This economic ignorance of the left, however, is not to be underestimated. It is massive and results in political parties like the NDP.

Canuckistani · July 7, 2012

American employers do not have to pay such costs, but choose to do so as part of a complete benefits package to attract and compete for the best employees.

You keep repeating this point. I've worked in the US, I know how the system works. Employers don't legally have to pay, but they do. Why? Not from the goodness of their hearts, but because they want to attract employees. If the govt provided that health care, think of how much more the employer could pay their employees, even if some of that was taxed back to pay for the system. Remember you're already paying taxes for medicare, medicaid and military.

I worked in the US fresh out of grad school. My employer provided HMO coverage. I couldn't choose my own doctor, had to get approval for procedures from Kaiser, had to go to Kaiser hospitals, had to co-pay for procedures and had to co-pay off my paycheck as well. Blew me away. I was glad I never had to use that system while I was there.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

I'm familiar with Glenn Beck, and I like him. He's improved a lot since his earlier years of fame.

Yes, he engages in hyperbole,

You mean hios conspiracy theories?

and is overly dramatic,

He's a weepy little intellectual and moral weakling.

but I find the thrust of his leanings agreeable.

Ah. too bad. He's an utter moron.

You want to mock Ayn Rand, while the father of your ideology is Karl Marx, and its real-life implementers are Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Guevara, Mao, Hitler, and Kim Il-Sung. Your slander doesn't work so well when the tables are turned.

I have debated many times with lefties over just this point...particularly Lenin, a dictatorial killer who is defended because he was "not as bad as Stalin"...which must make a man like myself heroic indeed, if we're to use such comparisons.

But the Left has, thankfully, been dropping these creatures from their roster for a long time now; indeed, some of the more popular and influential leftists, like Chomsky, have always spoken out against them.

Nice try, though, sneaking in a right-wing maniac, and the most infamous of the killers you list.

I know, yes yes, of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" thesis (which Beck, being unread and unintelligent, really admires...but then, Beck has also shilled for an anti-semite anti-communist author on his show...you didn't know that, did you?

However, Goldberg's "liberal fascism" notion has been demolished handily by several scholars of fascism.

Fascism was a right-wing movement that used elements of early 20th century leftism...but it was still (and remains) more of a right-wing phenomenon.

At any rate, Ayn Rand was not a conservative...so why you're using the right-left comparison yet again is baffling.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

I don't think bleeding heart can make it through one post without referring to his ideological detractors as stupid. It's the standard (misplaced and ironic) arrogance of the left. They think they're complex, nuanced, and layered whereas conservatives are simplistic brutes. It's funny, and unfortunately for them, I'm now on this board.

But seriously, kraychik...are you really that un-self-aware?

You've arrived at this forum, and done nothing but screech "the Left! The Left!" You inform us that the Left is arrogant, stupid, uneducated...and then you latch on to what I said about a tiny sector of the conservative movement???

What gives, man?

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

Fortunately, you've outed yourself as a Glenn Beck fan...so that shuts down a lot of credibility.

You think mentioning Chomsky is any better? Really?

The only common virtue is yet more worship of American ideologues!

kraychik · July 7, 2012

Oh, so now we've gotten into the historical revisionism of Nazism being a right-wing movement, despite the fact that the contemporary left has far in common with Nazism (a leftist ideology) than the contemporary right. Ah well, I've had this conversation a hundred times over. I see where you're coming from and can tell that you don't have either the honesty or ability to have a serious discussion.

Signals.Cpl · July 7, 2012

Here's your "intelligent" Glenn Beck; I challenge you, kraychik, to go to the 3:15 mark, and listen for about fifteen seconds.

Go ahead, i dare you!

I think he does that a lot...

kraychik · July 7, 2012

You think mentioning Chomsky is any better? Really?

The only common virtue is yet more worship of American ideologues!

I was gonna mention that, but I let it slide. Me appreciating Glenn Beck (and I've got some criticisms for him, as well, as he used to be very Alex Jones-ish) is somehow an assault on my "credibility" (according to a socialist), yet his admiration of a communist linguistics professor is somehow... totally fine? I've seen his argumentation style before, he never addresses substance and just insults and insults and insults some more.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

You think mentioning Chomsky is any better? Really?

Than Beck?

....certainly. Definitely.

The only common virtue is yet more worship of American ideologues!

There's no worship. Worship is an actual word with actual denotations and connotations.

bleeding heart · July 7, 2012

Oh, so now we've gotten into the historical revisionism of Nazism being a right-wing movement, despite the fact that the contemporary left has far in common with Nazism (a leftist ideology) than the contemporary right. Ah well, I've had this conversation a hundred times over. I see where you're coming from and can tell that you don't have either the honesty or ability to have a serious discussion.

Read scholarly work on fascism...any scholarly work on fascism. There's tons of it; it's complex; and scholars do not all agree.

Read Robert Paxton; Roger Griffin; and Mathew Feldman, for starters...they take the thesis on directly.

Or you can go back and rtead Raul hilberg (commonly referred to as "The Dean of holocaust Studies", having virtually invented the filed single-handedly. Hilberg was a conservative, but was extremely clear on the right-wing impulses that made fascism possible.

But I have yet to see one that agrees with Goldberg (which is where you got the idea, whether you know it or not); and of course Nazism has more to do with the contemporary right.

There are still folks calling themselves Nazis.

They are uniformly right-wingers.

And interestingly, kraychik, if you go peruse Stormfront or one of the other neo-Nazi, white nationalist sites, I think you'll discover something intriguing: on the occasion where these buffoons aren't castigating the Jews, the blacks, the Arabs, and the hispanics...they are having conservative-leaning discussions that you would find instantly familiar.

They sure as hell aren't lefties.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

bush_cheney2004 · July 7, 2012

Read scholarly work on fascism...any scholarly work on fascism. There's tons of it; it's complex; and scholars do not all agree.

Read Robert Paxton; Roger Griffin; and Mathew Feldman, for starters...they take the thesis on directly.

...now in full on elitist mode...keep going....it becomes you, and only proves his point.

kraychik · July 7, 2012

Read scholarly work on fascism...any scholarly work on fascism. There's tons of it; it's complex; and scholars do not all agree.

Read Robert Paxton; Roger Griffin; and Mathew Feldman, for starters...they take the thesis on directly.

Or you can go back and rtead Raul hilberg (commonly referred to as "The Dean of holocaust Studies", having virtually invented the filed single-handedly. Hilberg was a conservative, but was extremely clear on the right-wing impulses that made fascism possible.

But I have yet to see one that agrees with Goldberg (which is where you got the idea, whether you know it or not); and of course Nazism has more to do with the contemporary right.

There are still folks calling themselves Nazis.

They are uniformly right-wingers.

And interestingly, kraychik, if you go peruse Stormfront or one of the other neo-Nazi, white nationalist sites, I think you'll discover something intriguing: on the occasion where these buffoons aren't castigating the Jews, the blacks, the Arabs, and the hispanics...they are having conservative-leaning discussions that you would find instantly familiar.

They sure as hell aren't lefties.

So I need to take my opinion from a "scholar"? It's funny how leftists always pretend to be more thoughtful, nuanced, educated, and intelligent, however you always engage in a herd mentality where you invoke the opinion of a "scholar" rather than articulate why it is that you think the way you do. "Noam Chomsky agreed with me" doesn't make for a compelling argument. You can't articulate your own reasons for thinking the way you do without name-dropping in a transparent attempt to impress us and create this image of you being well-read, so we see through you. It's infantile. I also don't care what Jonah Goldberg has to say, I've known about these issues long before he came into the mainstream. It is the left that follows its leaders devotedly, not the right.

Nazism is a leftist ideology. It believes in centralization of control and a major abrogation of individual liberty in both the economic and social spheres. This is textbook leftism. Conversely, the contemporary right supports a retraction of government encroachment over the liberty of the individual in these two dimensions. It's simple, the contemporary left has far more in common with Nazism and other extreme manifestations of leftism than the contemporary right, despite the attempts at historical revisionism to portray Nazism as a "far-right" ideology. This was done for transparent reasons, to pretend that there is a counterweight on the right to communism. If you prefer, we can use the term statist, but for most honest people this is just a synonym for leftist.

Edited July 7, 2012 by kraychik

kraychik · July 7, 2012

...now in full on elitist mode...keep going....it becomes you, and only proves his point.

It's just mindless name-dropping, he's like a drone. All it does it show that he cannot articulate his own opinion. I'm not some moron who will swallow the lie of Nazism being a "far-right" movement. It is a leftist movement, with the only distinction being that is is nationalist in focus (and racist), while communism was internationalist.