11/9/16 Hillarious; Check Out These Hillarious Clinton DEPLORABLE Supporters

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///                 HANDS DOWN OUR FAVOURITE POST OF THE DAY !

2 hours ago, new york kevin said:

Trump a Fascist, nope . A Capitalist yes. Fascism is a hybrid between the state owned everything of communism and draconian heavily enforced laws that erase your individual rights by attacking your rights from around the edges, and capitalism. The only group that promotes a middle class is capitalism, none of the rest do. Under Obama neo-socialism what did we see, the near extinction of the middle class. The very same middle class that rose up and said no to socialism in the USA because they have lost  everything under the lite version Obama brought in, and HRC was going to nurture onto full blown socialism if she go elected. Those people shown in that clip, and those that were protesting yesterday are the product of liberal college professors and parents that were against anyone loosing. You know the ones who adamantly insisted that everyone gets a trophy,  that no one should have to take a test, that did not believe good grades, jobs and futures must be earned.

 

[Jim1cor13]

3 hours ago, RV ME said:

Jim,

 

I believe we are discussing two different premises.  What you said was couched in a “steal the election” scenario.  In a previous conversation I had with BA, I was told that it didn’t matter who won the election because the fix was in for Hildabeast and she would be the next President.  I myself implied that if true, there should be a second revolution.   I interpret “steal” to mean winning by nefarious means either by the “fixed” system BA referenced or too many dead voters to count or some such scenario.

But the question BA posed has nothing to do with “stealing” the election.  BA simply asks us to imagine what would happen if Trump won the popular vote and Hildabeast won the electoral college due to the demographics of the individual States votes.  In this context, do you believe there would be the kind of demonstrations we are witnessing, let alone the examples you described?  I do not, but I would like to know just what BA imagines would have happened.  There will always be the lunatic fringe on both sides, what we are seeing today may be lunacy but it does not seem to be the fringe to me.

 

Thanks RV ME. I see what you are saying and agree in regards to it being won by nefarious means. I think BOTH sides have the fringe elements, and I have seen first hand what

happens to some folks deeply involved in politics/religion and how it affects their views, especially when they keep being led around by certain alt. media types

who are becoming just as sad as mainstream. I do think there would have been violence by either group, I expected it no matter who won, based upon the level

of frustration I heard. A close friend of mine worked the Trump campaign local office, and I had to calm him down several times due to all the claims

and propaganda coming in from some places, and he is a very level headed guy. It gets to some, once it gets inside the head, some do not react

well, and there were enough to lead me to believe we could see civil war no matter who won and much of that push came from the usual sources.

Lunacy is the proper description indeed, and I saw my fill from both sides the last year.

 

In my view, the most dangerous of those on the conservative side were/are the few who believe they have some kind of twisted mandate from god to pursue

violence, sometimes I was surprised at the comments, but again I realized it was coming from frustration which in some cases were valid. Those who supported

Clinton I think are showing more spoiled brat tendencies than anything else which is common after election time. I hope for no violence and as time wears

on, I suspect the current lunacy will subside as it all settles in.

 

I am glad Trump pulled it off, I hope he does well and keeps his promises. Otherwise, we are all without a voice if he sells out which I do not think

will happen but if history proves anything, it may. I think he is stronger than that, I hope. Have a good night...

Jim

[patrickgold]

6 hours ago, Jim1cor13 said:

I can only speak for myself in regards to what I had been hearing in some circles leading up to this election. Yes, i had been in

conversation with some who stated emphatically that they would "do what was necessary" if Hill "stole" this election. They

stated their voices would be heard one way or another and that it would take "a revolution" and bloodshed to "take our country back". This 'talk' occurred quite frequently, apparently spurred on by both alternative media people like Alex Jones who enjoys stirring up the followers, and a few others. 

 

Again, as per the above, yes, some were talking in this fashion but more hidden behind the usual discussions coming out of the

religious nut jobs who sometimes appeared to actually WANT civil war and would follow up with the all too common, "god will

destroy this land" or the ever present associated threats such as "god is not going to take it any more, and neither should we"

nonsense. Always justifying the "call to duty" against those they deemed worthy of punishment. Some of this talk came from

pulpits, believe it or not. My replies were generally it would be a bad idea to push their brand of justice and ruin the cause. i of

course was the "idiot" for trying to talk sense to their religious fervor. I was not alone in the attempts, but indeed, I came

across enough crazies that it was disturbing. Again, there are many folks out there who actually WANT to see this manner of

disruption, and also several "militias" that seemed ready to go, but evident most of what these people were saying was simply out of frustration and mostly hot air.

 

Again, some of the talk I heard from the above referenced, said they were "ready" to do what was necessary to be heard, even

if that resulted in bloodshed. Was this coming from a lot of folks? NO, thankfully, mostly from a few groups who decided they

were "called" to start the "revolution". I personally think it was all hot air, but that does not take away from the ideologies that

were ready to punish in the name of their god. I often had to wonder where these folks had heard so many insane ideas...that

spurred them on, and had emboldened them to make passing "threats", and the usual BS about there would be NO election,

and there would be "martial law" etc. All BS, but they believed it because they said "god showed them". Potentially dangerous

people that I am very glad are NOT the majority of those I had dialogue with. There is always bad actors that justify their

actions or proposed actions and most of it was based on what some crazy was telling them. Do I think they were "deplorables"?

No, I think they were mislead and angry people who seemed to be looking for a fight.

 

I understand  what you stated above could  very well mean  what these individuals were thinking. 

I too came across individuals with this mind set.  As we continued to converse, I could see that the only way these individuals would think of a revolution, and I will say that these individuals would not be the ones to start a revolution, but I will say that this government fired the first shot to start the revolution.   

You do know that when our freedoms, and liberties are violated and taken from us , when the Constitution is in endanger, when our religious freedoms are at stake, you can understand completely how and why they felt, anger, despair.  I hope so!  We do have some radicals who are in their own category.  The Patriots are for Freedom.  They took and solemn Oath to protect the Constitution!!!

 

 

[Sage449]

NYK, can't plus you enough, especially "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. Drives me to drink.

[new york kevin]

It reminds me, the Dems created a tax controversy when Romney ran against Obama. Remember when Mr Squeeky Clean Romney got slammed and demonized for only paying 15% in Fed Taxes. This ploy was then catapulted into dividing the nation along the lines of the wealthy, Republican wealthy, and those that were just working stiffs like me. Only to be exposed as a dirty rotten classest trick by Mr Harry Reid himself, when he responded to a journalist question " why did you make such a big stink about Romney's taxes when you Mr Reid and Mr Obama also only paid a 15% tax rate on your income?" Reid said something to the effect. "what does it matter it ended up doing the job I intended it to do." Now with Mr Trump being elected by all the unemployed, dropout from the labor market, 1/3 of the Latinos, what 20% of the African American vote. All of these folks now have hope. Hope that a government, that asks itself "how will this deal, law, or treaty help Americans" will negotiate on the world stage deals that will bring back jobs to the US and its citizens. The silly emotionally distraught millennials who live in mom and dads basement,  with their huge college debt weighing on their backs, might actually be contributing to society, paying their own debts, and their own rent/mortgage if their Fascist leaders did not arrange International treaty's or national economic policies that had the net effect of out sourcing jobs and entire companies to foreign countries they might have decent paying jobs of their own and not in the barista industry. If they did what Trump will hopefully be doing for the American people when he assumes office, they will have the jobs that would never have opened up under the 3rd term for Mr Obama. With a secured border, and enforcement of just the existing immigration laws, and the mandated use of E-verify, plus a work visa and path to citizenship for the non-criminal undocumented aliens. The jobs that will be created will go to those people already here.

[RV ME]

7 hours ago, bostonangler said:

RV ME I think if Trump won the popular vote but lost The Electoral, the first thing is, he would not have conceded. Secondly, I think as you stated the fringe element (which is a part of any group) would have done a bit more than protested and cried like Clinton's supported have done. (Personally I see both those actions as pathetic). I think the Trump fringe would have been more violent. I base that on some of the rallies where violence was already taking place. I'm not blaming Trump or you, but the fringe element. Finally, I believe the Trump supporters here on DV would have been rabid in their posting. Heck they have been not only gloating but hammering those who didn't agree with them. Now I do admit Candy did over the top when calling all Trump voters sloped headed, knuckle dragging Neanderthals. As always JMHO

 

B/A

BA,

First I need to apologize for mistakenly quoting Jax earlier when I meant to address your post.  My bad.

That being said, I am not going to argue what you can imagine, that would be futile.  But I will point out what you refuse to see.  I can list dozens of acts of violence that have taken place since Tuesday, and not once has it been because Hildabeast won the popular vote but Trump won the election.  Imagine what you will but what I see are liberals who refuse to accept that Trump is President elect and they have resorted to mob violence to vent their rage.  There are no accusations Trump stole the election, just the inability to accept something they never imagined.

Another thing that can’t be argued is the fact that you once told me the Republicans destroyed the education system?!?!?!?  Since you refused to explain how you came to that conclusion I will have to chalk it up to another instance of something you can imagine that I can’t argue with.  But again, I will need to point out what you refuse to see.  You refuse to acknowledge that what you are witnessing is the bumper crop of ignorance from the seeds sown by the liberal / progressive education system for looooo these many years (decades?).  These useful idiots are not upset that Hidabeast won the popular vote, they simply refuse to accept the fact Trump will be President.  Ironically, many of these UI’s are the same snowflakes that demanded safe spaces at their universities.  Imagine that.

And finally, I believe you are mistaking rejoicing that Hildabeast lost for gloating.  For evidence, just look at Shabs post from Wednesday morning.  I can think of nobody more openly against Trump than Shabs was, but I defy you to show me where anyone was gloating.  Respect breeds respect.

[bostonangler]

8 hours ago, RV ME said:

BA,

 

First I need to apologize for mistakenly quoting Jax earlier when I meant to address your post.  My bad.

 

That being said, I am not going to argue what you can imagine, that would be futile.  But I will point out what you refuse to see.  I can list dozens of acts of violence that have taken place since Tuesday, and not once has it been because Hildabeast won the popular vote but Trump won the election.  Imagine what you will but what I see are liberals who refuse to accept that Trump is President elect and they have resorted to mob violence to vent their rage.  There are no accusations Trump stole the election, just the inability to accept something they never imagined.

 

Another thing that can’t be argued is the fact that you once told me the Republicans destroyed the education system?!?!?!?  Since you refused to explain how you came to that conclusion I will have to chalk it up to another instance of something you can imagine that I can’t argue with.  But again, I will need to point out what you refuse to see.  You refuse to acknowledge that what you are witnessing is the bumper crop of ignorance from the seeds sown by the liberal / progressive education system for looooo these many years (decades?).  These useful idiots are not upset that Hidabeast won the popular vote, they simply refuse to accept the fact Trump will be President.  Ironically, many of these UI’s are the same snowflakes that demanded safe spaces at their universities.  Imagine that.

 

And finally, I believe you are mistaking rejoicing that Hildabeast lost for gloating.  For evidence, just look at Shabs post from Wednesday morning.  I can think of nobody more openly against Trump than Shabs was, but I defy you to show me where anyone was gloating.  Respect breeds respect.

 

RV Me. I do believe if it had gone the other way many would be crying about fixed elections. Before the election even took place that was one of the biggest talking points. Nearly every conservative talk show, republican party member and so on were saying the voting was fixed/corrupted. They were telling us about dead people voting, and how illegals were voting, they had proof the voting machines had been hacked. It seems to me, both the liberal and conservative media got it wrong. The liberal media and their polls were wrong. The conservative media and their accusations got it wrong. One of the best things that did come out of this election is the lesson that the pundits really have no idea what they are talking about. Hopefully everyone will remember and learn from this lesson... Oh, never mind. We live in The United States of Amnesia, where the common people won't remember any of this in 3 weeks, because The Kardashians, or Bill Cosby or Brad and Angelina will fart and that will be all anyone will care about.  

Although I don't remember saying the Republicans broke education, I remember saying progressives created the education system. But now that you bring it up, I think history proves Bush's "No Child Left Behind" has been a disaster. Getting the Federal government into education or any state program is never a good idea. You know it and I know it too.

I'm not sure why being progressive has become a bad thing. Many here go to the founding fathers and the constitution because of the religious freedoms and the god given rights it has afforded us, and while the constitution may be the greatest document ever written, it certainly wasn't conservative. Think about it. In their time, were they being conservative to go against the king and start a new country? I would have to say that was pretty progressive thinking. Being conservative across the board will get a country and it's people nowhere.

Here is Webster's definition of conservative;

: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism

• Conservative : of or relating to the conservative party in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada

• : not liking or accepting changes or new ideas

I've included the link because I know you like them... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative.

 

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of change. Black and white TV was good but color is better. Leeches to cure might have been a decent idea, but modern medicine is better. Walking across America is cool, but riding my Road King is better... If today's movement of conservatism had been the mantra for the past 500 years, we as a whole would still think the world is flat... But  of course there are those who still think that way.... Google it. It is actually pretty funny.

One of the other great things to come out of this election are the states that legalized marijuana... This is going to be great for the Girl Scouts and their cookie sales!!!

 

B/A

 

Go RVvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

[Jaxinjersey]

7 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

RV Me. I do believe if it had gone the other way many would be crying about fixed elections. Before the election even took place that was one of the biggest talking points. Nearly every conservative talk show, republican party member and so on were saying the voting was fixed/corrupted. They were telling us about dead people voting, and how illegals were voting, they had proof the voting machines had been hacked. It seems to me, both the liberal and conservative media got it wrong. The liberal media and their polls were wrong. The conservative media and their accusations got it wrong. One of the best things that did come out of this election is the lesson that the pundits really have no idea what they are talking about. Hopefully everyone will remember and learn from this lesson... Oh, never mind. We live in The United States of Amnesia, where the common people won't remember any of this in 3 weeks, because The Kardashians, or Bill Cosby or Brad and Angelina will fart and that will be all anyone will care about.  

Although I don't remember saying the Republicans broke education, I remember saying progressives created the education system. But now that you bring it up, I think history proves Bush's "No Child Left Behind" has been a disaster. Getting the Federal government into education or any state program is never a good idea. You know it and I know it too.

I'm not sure why being progressive has become a bad thing. Many here go to the founding fathers and the constitution because of the religious freedoms and the god given rights it has afforded us, and while the constitution may be the greatest document ever written, it certainly wasn't conservative. Think about it. In their time, were they being conservative to go against the king and start a new country? I would have to say that was pretty progressive thinking. Being conservative across the board will get a country and it's people nowhere.

Here is Webster's definition of conservative;

: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism

• Conservative : of or relating to the conservative party in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada

• : not liking or accepting changes or new ideas

I've included the link because I know you like them... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative.

 

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of change. Black and white TV was good but color is better. Leeches to cure might have been a decent idea, but modern medicine is better. Walking across America is cool, but riding my Road King is better... If today's movement of conservatism had been the mantra for the past 500 years, we as a whole would still think the world is flat... But  of course there are those who still think that way.... Google it. It is actually pretty funny.

One of the other great things to come out of this election are the states that legalized marijuana... This is going to be great for the Girl Scouts and their cookie sales!!!

 

B/A

 

Go RVvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Good morning B/A... I'd like to chime in here.  Firstly... just because Trump won, doesn't mean there may not have been any voter fraud as you described above.  You cannot conclude such.  So, we will never truly know how any of it may have affected the votes... perhaps Trump may have won by a bigger margin?!!!  So... the issue was very relevant... still is relevant... and needs to be vigilantly relevant,

Next... if you confine the Conservatism strictly to its applications to the Constitution, especially within the tenets of Individual Freedom and Liberty, it is ALWAYS a timely constant... even in retrospect to our founding.  You can easily remove the religious reasoning of the time (then and now), and the Constitution still stands alone in its support of the human natural condition of freedom.

So, we need to simply separate the perspectives of such conservatism from those of Civil Society's progress, as you've described.  Change is wonderful in that regard... but Progressivism is more of a political context than that of scientific, technical, etc. changes/advancement.

Conservatism is as much a lifestyle as it is a political description... but we need to know how to accurately define their respective applications.  Only THEN, can the appropriate premises be established for a more honest discussion.

Have a great Veteran's Day!

[bostonangler]

3 minutes ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Good morning B/A... I'd like to chime in here.  Firstly... just because Trump won, doesn't mean there may not have been any voter fraud as you described above.  You cannot conclude such.  So, we will never truly know how any of it may have affected the votes... perhaps Trump may have won by a bigger margin?!!!  So... the issue was very relevant... still is relevant... and needs to be vigilantly relevant,

Next... if you confine the Conservatism strictly to its applications to the Constitution, especially within the tenets of Individual Freedom and Liberty, it is ALWAYS a timely constant... even in retrospect to our founding.  You can easily remove the religious reasoning of the time (then and now), and the Constitution still stands alone in its support of the human natural condition of freedom.

So, we need to simply separate the perspectives of such conservatism from those of Civil Society's progress, as you've described.  Change is wonderful in that regard... but Progressivism is more of a political context than that of scientific, technical, etc. changes/advancement.

Conservatism is as much a lifestyle as it is a political description... but we need to know how to accurately define their respective applications.  Only THEN, can the appropriate premises be established for a more honest discussion.

Have a great Veteran's Day!

Thanks Jax, I always appreciate your views.

First, I didn't say there was voter fraud, it was those on the right shouting that from the mountaintops.

Second, I completely agree. The Constitution stands on it's own as a guiding light for all humanity.

Third. Progression is in all things especially science and technology. If not, you would be rowing your boat this weekend and would never know the term waterski. Progression as a political term is no more than a catch phase. Like Make America Great Again, or The Patriot Act or The Affordable Care Act. All great phrases, but without substance.

Finally, if progressivism isn't a lifestyle, then neither is conservatism... Personally I think they are both lifestyles.

I hope your Veterans Day is both enjoyable and rewarding. I know today's parade and tribute downtown is something I would never miss. Thanks to all those who serve.

 

B/A

[Whatshername]

Snowflakes... listen up!

1. You are unique, but not particularly special. No one really cares about your feels.
2. Rewards are for merits, not for showing up. You want something, work for it.
3. Success is not guaranteed, to anyone, ever.
4. Chelsea Clinton is not a typical case. Stepping out of college with a ridiculously overpriced degree in a totally worthless discipline does not entitle you to a corner office, a six-figure income, and keys to the Executive Shitter. Chelsea is a Clinton, and Clintons get special treatment.
5. You are allowing yourselves to be pawns of the Left who have been grooming you your whole lives to be their frontline in an uprising. Saul Alinsky called people like you "useful idiots". You are happily following a group of rich, sequestered out-of-touch actors and "singers" who have no intentions of getting in the trenches with you. You are participating in riots funded by George Soros who has his own agenda and doesn't give a shlt about your hopes and dreams. He'll cheerfully walk on your corpses to reach his goal.
6. Life is hard. You don't always get to do what you want, when you want. And no one owes you anything. There is satisfaction in hard work and delayed gratification. And you'll learn all of this if and when you grow the hell up.

[new york kevin]

On 11/10/2016 at 6:44 PM, Sage449 said:

NYK, can't plus you enough, especially "everyone gets a trophy" mentality. Drives me to drink.

Thanks Sage449 I appreciate that. Gave you a bump up.

[new york kevin]

1 hour ago, Whatshername said:

Snowflakes... listen up!

You are allowing yourselves to be pawns of the Left who have been grooming you your whole lives to be their frontline in an uprising. Saul Alinsky called people like you "useful idiots". You are happily following a group of rich, sequestered out-of-touch actors and "singers" who have no intentions of getting in the trenches with you. You are participating in riots funded by George Soros who has his own agenda and doesn't give a shlt about your hopes and dreams. He'll cheerfully walk on your corpses to reach his goal

I would add, that the left not only are grooming them to be in their frontlines, but also to be their human shields. Sacrificing themselves for the sake of developing a controversy where there is no controversy.

[RV ME]

On 11/11/2016 at 8:04 AM, bostonangler said:

RV Me. I do believe if it had gone the other way many would be crying about fixed elections. Before the election even took place that was one of the biggest talking points. Nearly every conservative talk show, republican party member and so on were saying the voting was fixed/corrupted. They were telling us about dead people voting, and how illegals were voting, they had proof the voting machines had been hacked. It seems to me, both the liberal and conservative media got it wrong. The liberal media and their polls were wrong. The conservative media and their accusations got it wrong. One of the best things that did come out of this election is the lesson that the pundits really have no idea what they are talking about. Hopefully everyone will remember and learn from this lesson... Oh, never mind. We live in The United States of Amnesia, where the common people won't remember any of this in 3 weeks, because The Kardashians, or Bill Cosby or Brad and Angelina will fart and that will be all anyone will care about.  

Although I don't remember saying the Republicans broke education, I remember saying progressives created the education system. But now that you bring it up, I think history proves Bush's "No Child Left Behind" has been a disaster. Getting the Federal government into education or any state program is never a good idea. You know it and I know it too.

I'm not sure why being progressive has become a bad thing. Many here go to the founding fathers and the constitution because of the religious freedoms and the god given rights it has afforded us, and while the constitution may be the greatest document ever written, it certainly wasn't conservative. Think about it. In their time, were they being conservative to go against the king and start a new country? I would have to say that was pretty progressive thinking. Being conservative across the board will get a country and it's people nowhere.

Here is Webster's definition of conservative;

: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism

• Conservative : of or relating to the conservative party in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada

• : not liking or accepting changes or new ideas

I've included the link because I know you like them... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative.

 

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of change. Black and white TV was good but color is better. Leeches to cure might have been a decent idea, but modern medicine is better. Walking across America is cool, but riding my Road King is better... If today's movement of conservatism had been the mantra for the past 500 years, we as a whole would still think the world is flat... But  of course there are those who still think that way.... Google it. It is actually pretty funny.

One of the other great things to come out of this election are the states that legalized marijuana... This is going to be great for the Girl Scouts and their cookie sales!!!

 

B/A

 

Go RVvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

So many points to address in your response I hope I do not miss any.  I can skirt over the part about voter fraud since Jax already set the record straight, but your response to him shows you missed the point.  As for all the pundits getting it wrong, I guess you would be correct if you ascribe pundit to the propagandists that infect the airways.  Sadly you are correct in that the same people who believed the propaganda will soon know the Kardashians but not who the Vice President is.  Those of us who choose to stay informed will continue as before.

 

As for why progressivism has become a bad thing, maybe it is because conservatives are sick of the liberal PC bastardization of the English language.  Liberals (or moderate or progressives or whatever the selected descriptor is today) have tried to make “conservative” a bad word for years, but true conservatives don’t run away from the term.  We will explain our beliefs and positions as a conservative and defend the position intellectually, Jax comes to mind as a perfect example.  Just because the result of the Founding Fathers’ action was progress, they were by no means progressive (as you are attempting to re-define them) in their political or personal beliefs.  I do not know why is it that progressives can’t admit they are liberal.  You yourself insisted that you are a (mostly) right leaning Republican.  As I pointed out, nothing you have posted would lead anyone to believe you have the slightest tilt to the right.  Why do you insist on denying who you are?  Personally, I believe it is because the positions liberals / progressives espouse cannot be intellectually defended.  They feel things should be a certain way but do not have the intellectually honesty to look at the harm caused by their liberal / progressive polices.

 

Your education argument is a perfect example.  You not only ignore reality, you talk out of both sides of your mouth and apparently do not even realize it.  In this one paragraph you say that progressives created the education system, but apparently you blame GWB for destroying the good work liberals have been doing running the education system longer than I have been alive.  Two problems with your premise, first liberals did indeed create the education system THAT WE NOW HAVE.  It has been broken since I was in school and has continued its’ freefall since I’ve been out.  GWB reached across the aisle (like progressives say they want) and let your very own liberal Senator Ted Kennedy write and pass through the democrat controlled Senate the No Child bill.  You do not seem to be able to process these facts in your mind when you claim all good comes from progressives and all bad is the fault of Republicans.  And as I asked before, if you thought No Child was a disaster, what do you think about the progressive Obummer’s Common Core?  Would that be another quality progressive step or is it another Republican failure in your mind?  As for me saying you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, you extoll the greatness of the “progressive” education system and in the same sentence state the federal government getting involved in State issues is never a good thing.  Apparently you do not understand the decrepit education system we have came from a top down Federal Dept of Education which has been run by liberals for over 50 years.  Please explain the contradiction of crediting progressive’s federal policies while saying getting the Federal government involved in State issues is never a good idea.  I actually agree with the latter 100%, but what you have repeatedly said about the education system makes one scratch their heads in wonder.

 

This is the third time I have presented this argument to you.  It has been ignored the previous two times.  I will continue to bring it up until you do address the points I’ve made.  It is frustrating to this conservative to see liberals make outrageous comments and make no attempt to defend them when countered.  Maybe that is why “progressive” has become a bad word, because they are too much like liberals.  Your liberal hit and run will not go unchallenged by me, so up your game.  Show me where I’m wrong or present an intelligent counter argument rather than just platitudes.  If you can’t, perhaps you should re-examine the basis of your beliefs.

[Indraman]

42 minutes ago, RV ME said:

So many points to address in your response I hope I do not miss any.  I can skirt over the part about voter fraud since Jax already set the record straight, but your response to him shows you missed the point.  As for all the pundits getting it wrong, I guess you would be correct if you ascribe pundit to the propagandists that infect the airways.  Sadly you are correct in that the same people who believed the propaganda will soon know the Kardashians but not who the Vice President is.  Those of us who choose to stay informed will continue as before.

 

 

 

As for why progressivism has become a bad thing, maybe it is because conservatives are sick of the liberal PC bastardization of the English language.  Liberals (or moderate or progressives or whatever the selected descriptor is today) have tried to make “conservative” a bad word for years, but true conservatives don’t run away from the term.  We will explain our beliefs and positions as a conservative and defend the position intellectually, Jax comes to mind as a perfect example.  Just because the result of the Founding Fathers’ action was progress, they were by no means progressive (as you are attempting to re-define them) in their political or personal beliefs.  I do not know why is it that progressives can’t admit they are liberal.  You yourself insisted that you are a (mostly) right leaning Republican.  As I pointed out, nothing you have posted would lead anyone to believe you have the slightest tilt to the right.  Why do you insist on denying who you are?  Personally, I believe it is because the positions liberals / progressives espouse cannot be intellectually defended.  They feel things should be a certain way but do not have the intellectually honesty to look at the harm caused by their liberal / progressive polices.

 

 

 

Your education argument is a perfect example.  You not only ignore reality, you talk out of both sides of your mouth and apparently do not even realize it.  In this one paragraph you say that progressives created the education system, but apparently you blame GWB for destroying the good work liberals have been doing running the education system longer than I have been alive.  Two problems with your premise, first liberals did indeed create the education system THAT WE NOW HAVE.  It has been broken since I was in school and has continued its’ freefall since I’ve been out.  GWB reached across the aisle (like progressives say they want) and let your very own liberal Senator Ted Kennedy write and pass through the democrat controlled Senate the No Child bill.  You do not seem to be able to process these facts in your mind when you claim all good comes from progressives and all bad is the fault of Republicans.  And as I asked before, if you thought No Child was a disaster, what do you think about the progressive Obummer’s Common Core?  Would that be another quality progressive step or is it another Republican failure in your mind?  As for me saying you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, you extoll the greatness of the “progressive” education system and in the same sentence state the federal government getting involved in State issues is never a good thing.  Apparently you do not understand the decrepit education system we have came from a top down Federal Dept of Education which has been run by liberals for over 50 years.  Please explain the contradiction of crediting progressive’s federal policies while saying getting the Federal government involved in State issues is never a good idea.  I actually agree with the latter 100%, but what you have repeatedly said about the education system makes one scratch their heads in wonder.

 

 

This is the third time I have presented this argument to you.  It has been ignored the previous two times.  I will continue to bring it up until you do address the points I’ve made.  It is frustrating to this conservative to see liberals make outrageous comments and make no attempt to defend them when countered.  Maybe that is why “progressive” has become a bad word, because they are too much like liberals.  Your liberal hit and run will not go unchallenged by me, so up your game.  Show me where I’m wrong or present an intelligent counter argument rather than just platitudes.  If you can’t, perhaps you should re-examine the basis of your beliefs.

 

RV ME, very concise and articulate. ++++1

Indy

[bostonangler]

2 hours ago, RV ME said:

So many points to address in your response I hope I do not miss any.  I can skirt over the part about voter fraud since Jax already set the record straight, but your response to him shows you missed the point.  As for all the pundits getting it wrong, I guess you would be correct if you ascribe pundit to the propagandists that infect the airways.  Sadly you are correct in that the same people who believed the propaganda will soon know the Kardashians but not who the Vice President is.  Those of us who choose to stay informed will continue as before.

 

 

 

As for why progressivism has become a bad thing, maybe it is because conservatives are sick of the liberal PC bastardization of the English language.  Liberals (or moderate or progressives or whatever the selected descriptor is today) have tried to make “conservative” a bad word for years, but true conservatives don’t run away from the term.  We will explain our beliefs and positions as a conservative and defend the position intellectually, Jax comes to mind as a perfect example.  Just because the result of the Founding Fathers’ action was progress, they were by no means progressive (as you are attempting to re-define them) in their political or personal beliefs.  I do not know why is it that progressives can’t admit they are liberal.  You yourself insisted that you are a (mostly) right leaning Republican.  As I pointed out, nothing you have posted would lead anyone to believe you have the slightest tilt to the right.  Why do you insist on denying who you are?  Personally, I believe it is because the positions liberals / progressives espouse cannot be intellectually defended.  They feel things should be a certain way but do not have the intellectually honesty to look at the harm caused by their liberal / progressive polices.

 

 

 

Your education argument is a perfect example.  You not only ignore reality, you talk out of both sides of your mouth and apparently do not even realize it.  In this one paragraph you say that progressives created the education system, but apparently you blame GWB for destroying the good work liberals have been doing running the education system longer than I have been alive.  Two problems with your premise, first liberals did indeed create the education system THAT WE NOW HAVE.  It has been broken since I was in school and has continued its’ freefall since I’ve been out.  GWB reached across the aisle (like progressives say they want) and let your very own liberal Senator Ted Kennedy write and pass through the democrat controlled Senate the No Child bill.  You do not seem to be able to process these facts in your mind when you claim all good comes from progressives and all bad is the fault of Republicans.  And as I asked before, if you thought No Child was a disaster, what do you think about the progressive Obummer’s Common Core?  Would that be another quality progressive step or is it another Republican failure in your mind?  As for me saying you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, you extoll the greatness of the “progressive” education system and in the same sentence state the federal government getting involved in State issues is never a good thing.  Apparently you do not understand the decrepit education system we have came from a top down Federal Dept of Education which has been run by liberals for over 50 years.  Please explain the contradiction of crediting progressive’s federal policies while saying getting the Federal government involved in State issues is never a good idea.  I actually agree with the latter 100%, but what you have repeatedly said about the education system makes one scratch their heads in wonder.

 

 

This is the third time I have presented this argument to you.  It has been ignored the previous two times.  I will continue to bring it up until you do address the points I’ve made.  It is frustrating to this conservative to see liberals make outrageous comments and make no attempt to defend them when countered.  Maybe that is why “progressive” has become a bad word, because they are too much like liberals.  Your liberal hit and run will not go unchallenged by me, so up your game.  Show me where I’m wrong or present an intelligent counter argument rather than just platitudes.  If you can’t, perhaps you should re-examine the basis of your beliefs.

 

RV, I think we agree on many more things than you might imagine. Common Core makes me want to throw-up. It is a sick and perverse government program, as are so many. When I speak of education and progressives, I'm not talking about recent history. I gather from your examples that you believe I'm talking about the progress (or lack there of) of education in our lifetimes. I'm not. I'm talking about when education was made available to the masses.

Looking back to early America, the churches were the ones who starting the building blocks of public education. It was available on a very limited basis. Forward thinking people brought it to everyone. If bringing the working class education was progressive, liberal or whatever one chooses to call it. I'm just glad I was given the opportunity.

What's funny is how all things seem political. Myself, I'm not really into politics but somehow I got caught up in these discussions. That's one of the greatest things about America. People left, right, conservative, liberal, forward or backass backwards all have the right to express their opinions.

So I leave you with this. I'm going to sit back and watch our new President and save judgement until he is given the time to work his agenda. I, like most of his supporters want to see the government change and get a fresh start. I don't want a bunch of Washington cronies to step in and do business as usual. I will step back and see what our future holds and where President Trump takes us.

Finally, below is a bit of history on education and how it was brought to poor working stiffs like me. My family was not one of privilege and prior to the movement to bring education to everyone, which was more than a century ago, I would have been given no opportunity to have a real education. During the Gilded Age America was a country of classes. Those who had and those who didn't, and very few could be lifted from a lower class. Thankfully there were people who found the class system wrong for the new kid on the block, America. This was the land of the free and the old ways had to change.

 

20th century[edit]

Progressive Era[edit]

The progressive era in education was part of a larger Progressive Movement, extending from the 1890s to the 1930s. The era was notable for a dramatic expansion in the number of schools and students served, especially in the fast-growing metropolitan cities. After 1910, smaller cities also began building high schools. By 1940, 50% of young adults had earned a high school diploma.^[46]

Radical historians in the 1960s, steeped in the anti-bureaucratic ethos of the New Left, deplored the emergence of bureaucratic school systems. They argue its purpose was to suppress the upward aspirations of the working class.^[78] But other historians have emphasized the necessity of building non-politicized standardized systems. The reforms in St. Louis, according to historian Selwyn Troen, were, "born of necessity as educators first confronted the problems of managing a rapidly expanding and increasingly complex institutions." Troen found that the bureaucratic solution removed schools from the bitterness and spite of ward politics. Troen argues:

In the space of only a generation, public education had left behind a highly regimented and politicized system dedicated to training children in the basic skills of literacy and the special discipline required of urban citizens, and had replaced it with a largely apolitical, more highly organized and efficient structure specifically designed to teach students the many specialized skills demanded in a modern, industrial society. In terms of programs this entailed the introduction of vocational instruction, a doubling of the period of schooling, and a broader concern for the welfare of urban youth.^[79]

The social elite in many cities in the 1890s led the reform movement. Their goal was to permanently end political party control of the local schools for the benefit of patronage jobs and construction contracts, which had arisen out of ward politics that absorbed and taught the millions of new immigrants. New York City elite led progressive reforms. Reformers installed a bureaucratic system run by experts, and demanded expertise from prospective teachers. The reforms opened the way for hiring more Irish Catholic and Jewish teachers, who proved adept at handling the civil service tests and gaining the necessary academic credentials. Before the reforms, schools had often been used as a means to provide patronage jobs for party foot soldiers. The new emphasis concentrated on broadening opportunities for the students. New programs were established for the physically handicapped; evening recreation centers were set up; vacation schools were opened; medical inspections became routine; programs began to teach English as a second language; and school libraries were opened.^[80]

Dewey and progressive education[edit]

The leading educational theorist of the era was John Dewey (1859–1952), a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and at Teachers College (1904 to 1930), of Columbia University in New York City.^[81] Dewey was a leading proponent of "Progressive Education" and wrote many books and articles to promote the central role of democracy in education.^[82] He believed that schools were not only a place for students to gain content knowledge, but also as a place for them to learn how to live. The purpose of education was thus to realize the student's full potential and the ability to use those skills for the greater good.

Dewey noted that, "to prepare him for the future life means to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities." Dewey insisted that education and schooling are instrumental in creating social change and reform. He noted that "education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.".^[83] Although Dewey's ideas were very widely discussed, they were implemented chiefly in small experimental schools attached to colleges of education. In the public schools, Dewey and the other progressive theorists encountered a highly bureaucratic system of school administration that was typically not receptive to new methods.^[84]

Black education[edit]

Booker T. Washington was the dominant black political and educational leader in the United States from the 1890s until his death in 1915. Washington not only led his own college, Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, but his advice, political support, and financial connections proved important to many other black colleges and high schools, which were primarily located in the South. This was the center of the black population until after the Great Migration of the first half of the 20th century. Washington was a respected advisor to major philanthropies, such as the Rockefeller, Rosenwald and Jeanes foundations, which provided funding for leading black schools and colleges. The Rosenwald Foundation provided matching funds for the construction of schools for rural black students in the South. Washington explained, "We need not only the industrial school, but the college and professional school as well, for a people so largely segregated, as we are.... Our teachers, ministers, lawyers and doctors will prosper just in proportion as they have about them an intelligent and skillful producing class."^[85] Washington was a strong advocate of progressive reforms as advocated by Dewey, emphasizing scientific, industrial and agricultural education that produced a base for lifelong learning, and enabled careers for many black teachers, professionals, and upwardly mobile workers. He tried to adapt to the system and did not support political protests against the segregated Jim Crow system.^[86] At the same time, Washington used his network to provide important funding to support numerous legal challenges by the NAACP against the systems of disenfranchisement which southern legislatures had passed at the turn of the century, effectively excluding blacks from politics for decades into the 1960s.

Atlanta[edit]

In most American cities, Progressives in the Efficiency Movement looked for ways to eliminate waste and corruption. They emphasized using experts in schools. For example, in the 1897 reform of the Atlanta schools, the school board was reduced in size, eliminating the power of ward bosses. The members of the school board were elected at-large, reducing the influence of various interest groups. The power of the superintendent was increased. Centralized purchasing allowed for economies of scale, although it also added opportunities for censorship and suppression of dissent. Standards of hiring and tenure in teachers were made uniform. Architects designed school buildings in which the classrooms, offices, workshops and other facilities related together. Curricular innovations were introduced. The reforms were designed to produce a school system for white students according to the best practices of the day. Middle-class professionals instituted these reforms; they were equally antagonistic to the traditional business elites and to working-class elements.^[87]

Gary plan[edit]

The "Gary plan" was implemented in the new industrial "steel" city of Gary, Indiana, by William Wirt, the superintendent who served from 1907–30. Although the U.S. Steel Corporation dominated the Gary economy and paid abundant taxes, it did not shape Wirt's educational reforms. The Gary Plan emphasized highly efficient use of buildings and other facilities. This model was adopted by more than 200 cities around the country, including New York City. Wirt divided students into two platoons—one platoon used the academic classrooms, while the second platoon was divided among the shops, nature studies, auditorium, gymnasium, and outdoor facilities. Then the platoons rotated position.

Wirt set up an elaborate night school program, especially to Americanize new immigrants. The introduction of vocational educational programs, such as wood shop, machine shop, typing, and secretarial skills proved especially popular with parents who wanted their children to become foremen and office workers. By the Great Depression, most cities found the Gary plan too expensive, and abandoned it.^[88]

Secondary schools[edit]

In 1880, American high schools were primarily considered to be preparatory academies for students who were going to attend college. But by 1910 they had been transformed into core elements of the common school system and had broader goals of preparing many students for work after high school. The explosive growth brought the number of students from 200,000 in 1890 to 1,000,000 in 1910, to almost 2,000,000 by 1920; 7% of youths aged 14 to 17 were enrolled in 1890, rising to 32% in 1920. The graduates found jobs especially in the rapidly growing white-collar sector. Cities large and small across the country raced to build new high schools. Few were built in rural areas, so ambitious parents moved close to town to enable their teenagers to attend high school. After 1910, vocational education was added, as a mechanism to train the technicians and skilled workers needed by the booming industrial sector.^[89][90]

In the 1880s the high schools started developing as community centers. They added sports and by the 1920s were building gymnasiums that attracted large local crowds to basketball and other games, especially in small town schools that served nearby rural areas.^[91]

College preparation[edit]

In the 1865–1914 era, the number and character of schools changed to meet the demands of new and larger cities and of new immigrants. They had to adjust to the new spirit of reform permeating the country. High schools increased in number, adjusted their curriculum to prepare students for the growing state and private universities; education at all levels began to offer more utilitarian studies in place of an emphasis on the classics. John Dewey and other Progressives advocated changes from their base in teachers' colleges.^[92]

Before 1920 most secondary education, whether private or public, emphasized college entry for a select few headed for college. Proficiency in Greek and Latin was emphasized. Abraham Flexner, under commission from the philanthropic General Education Board (GEB), wrote A Modern School (1916), calling for a de-emphasis on the classics. The classics teachers fought back in a losing effort.^[93]

Prior to World War I, German was preferred as a subject for a second spoken language. Prussian and German educational systems had served as a model for many communities in the United States and its intellectual standing was highly respected. Due to Germany being an enemy of the US during the war, an anti-German attitude arose in the United States. French, the international language of diplomacy, was promoted as the preferred second language instead. French survived as the second language of choice until the 1960s, when Spanish became popular.^[94] This reflected a strong increase in the Spanish-speaking population in the United States, which has continued since the late 20th century.

The growth of human capital[edit]

By 1900 educators argued that the post-literacy schooling of the masses at the secondary and higher levels, would improve citizenship, develop higher-order traits, and produce the managerial and professional leadership needed for rapid economic modernization. The commitment to expanded education past age 14 set the U.S. apart from Europe for much of the 20th century.^[46]

From 1910 to 1940, high schools grew in number and size, reaching out to a broader clientele. In 1910, for example, 9% of Americans had a high school diploma; in 1935, the rate was 40%.^[95] By 1940, the number had increased to 50%.^[96] This phenomenon was uniquely American; no other nation attempted such widespread coverage. The fastest growth came in states with greater wealth, more homogeneity of wealth, and less manufacturing activity than others. The high schools provided necessary skill sets for youth planning to teach school, and essential skills for those planning careers in white collar work and some high-paying blue collar jobs. Claudia Goldin argues this rapid growth was facilitated by public funding, openness, gender neutrality, local (and also state) control, separation of church and state, and an academic curriculum. The wealthiest European nations, such as Germany and Britain, had far more exclusivity in their education system; few youth attended past age 14. Apart from technical training schools, European secondary schooling was dominated by children of the wealthy and the social elites.^[97]

American post-elementary schooling was designed to be consistent with national needs. It stressed general and widely applicable skills not tied to particular occupations or geographic areas, in order that students would have flexible employment options. As the economy was dynamic, the emphasis was on portable skills that could be used in a variety of occupations, industries, and regions.^[98]

Public schools were funded and supervised by independent districts that depended on taxpayer support. In dramatic contrast to the centralized systems in Europe, where national agencies made the major decisions, the American districts designed their own rules and curricula.^[99]

Teachers and administrators[edit]

Early public school superintendents emphasized discipline and rote learning, and school principals made sure the mandate was imposed on teachers. Disruptive students were expelled.^[100]

Support for the high school movement occurred at the grass-roots level of local cities and school systems. After 1916, the federal government began to provide for vocational education funding as part of support for raising readiness to work in industrial and artisan jobs. In these years, states and religious bodies generally funded teacher training colleges, often called "normal schools". Gradually they developed full four-year curriculums and developed as state colleges after 1945.

Teachers organized themselves during the 1920s and 1930s. In 1917, the National Education Association (NEA) was reorganized to better mobilize and represent teachers and educational staff. The rate of increase in membership was constant under the chairmanship of James Crabtree—from 8,466 members in 1917 to 220,149 in 1931. The rival American Federation of Teachers (AFT) was based in large cities and formed alliances with the local labor unions. The NEA identified as an upper-middle-class professional organization, while the AFT identified with the working class and the union movement.^[101][102]

Higher education[edit]

Main article: History of higher education in the United States

At the beginning of the 20th century, fewer than 1,000 colleges with 160,000 students existed in the United States. Explosive growth in the number of colleges occurred at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, supported in part by Congress' land grant programs. Philanthropists endowed many of these institutions. For example, wealthy philanthropists established Johns Hopkins University, Stanford University, Carnegie Mellon University, Vanderbilt University and Duke University; John D. Rockefeller funded the University of Chicago without imposing his name on it.^[103]

Land Grant universities[edit]

Each state used federal funding from the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Acts of 1862 and 1890 to set up "land grant colleges" that specialized in agriculture and engineering. The 1890 act required states that had segregation also to provide all-black land grant colleges, which were dedicated primarily to teacher training. These colleges contributed to rural development, including the establishment of a traveling school program by Tuskegee Institute in 1906. Rural conferences sponsored by Tuskegee also attempted to improve the life of rural blacks. In the late 20th century, many of the schools established in 1890 have helped train students from less-developed countries to return home with the skills and knowledge to improve agricultural production.^[104]

Among the first land-grant universities were Purdue University, Michigan State University, Kansas State University, Cornell University (in New York), Texas A&M University, Pennsylvania State University, The Ohio State University, and the University of California. Few alumni became farmers, but they did play an increasingly important role in the larger food industry, especially after the federal extension system was set up in 1916 that put trained agronomists in every agricultural county.

Engineering graduates played a major role in rapid technological development.^[105] The land-grant college system produced the agricultural scientists and industrial engineers who constituted the critical human resources of the managerial revolution in government and business, 1862–1917, laying the foundation of the world's pre-eminent educational infrastructure that supported the world's foremost technology-based economy.^[106]

Representative was Pennsylvania State University. The Farmers' High School of Pennsylvania (later the Agricultural College of Pennsylvania and then Pennsylvania State University), chartered in 1855, was intended to uphold declining agrarian values and show farmers ways to prosper through more productive farming. Students were to build character and meet a part of their expenses by performing agricultural labor. By 1875 the compulsory labor requirement was dropped, but male students were required to have an hour a day of military training in order to meet the requirements of the Morrill Land Grant College Act. In the early years, the agricultural curriculum was not well developed, and politicians in the state capital of Harrisburg often considered the land-grant college a costly and useless experiment. The college was a center of middle-class values that served to help young people on their journey to white-collar occupations.^[107]

GI Bill[edit]

Rejecting liberal calls for large-scale aid to education, Congress in 1944 during World War II passed the conservative program of aid limited to veterans who had served in wartime. The GI Bill made college education possible for millions by paying tuition and living expenses. The government provided between $800 and $1,400 each year to these veterans as a subsidy to attend college, which covered 50–80% of total costs. This included foregone earnings in addition to tuition, which allowed them to have enough funds for life outside of school. The GI Bill helped create a widespread belief in the necessity of college education. It opened up higher education to ambitious young men who would otherwise have been forced to immediately enter the job market after being discharged from the military. When comparing college attendance rates between veterans and non-veterans during this period, veterans were found to be 10% more likely to go to college than non-veterans.

In the early decades after the bill was passed, most campuses became overwhelmingly male thanks to the GI Bill, since few women were covered. But by 2000, women veterans had reached parity in numbers and began passing men in rates of college and graduate school attendance.^[108]

Great Society[edit]

When liberals regained control of Congress in 1964, they passed numerous Great Society programs supported by President Lyndon B. Johnson to expand federal support for education. The Higher Education Act of 1965 set up federal scholarships and low-interest loans for college students, and subsidized better academic libraries, ten to twenty new graduate centers, several new technical institutes, classrooms for several hundred thousand students, and twenty-five to thirty new community colleges a year. A separate education bill enacted that same year provided similar assistance to dental and medical schools. On an even larger scale, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 began pumping federal money into local school districts.^[109]

Segregation and integration[edit]

 

Segregation laws in the United States prior to Brown v. Board of Education

For much of its history, education in the United States was segregated (or even only available) based upon race. Early integrated schools such as the Noyes Academy, founded in 1835, in Canaan, New Hampshire, were generally met with fierce local opposition. For the most part, African Americans received very little to no formal education before the Civil War. Some free blacks in the North managed to become literate.

In the South where slavery was legal, many states had laws prohibiting teaching enslaved African Americans to read or write. A few taught themselves, others learned from white playmates or more generous masters, but most were not able to learn to read and write. Schools for free people of color were privately run and supported, as were most of the limited schools for white children. Poor white children did not attend school. The wealthier planters hired tutors for their children and sent them to private academies and colleges at the appropriate age.

During Reconstruction a coalition of freedmen and white Republicans in Southern state legislatures passed laws establishing public education. The Freedmen's Bureau was created as an agency of the military governments that managed Reconstruction. It set up schools in many areas and tried to help educate and protect freedmen during the transition after the war. With the notable exception of the desegregated public schools in New Orleans, the schools were segregated by race. By 1900 more than 30,000 black teachers had been trained and put to work in the South, and the literacy rate had climbed to more than 50%, a major achievement in little more than a generation.^[110]

Many colleges were set up for blacks; some were state schools like Booker T. Washington's Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, others were private ones subsidized by Northern missionary societies.

Although the African-American community quickly began litigation to challenge such provisions, in the 19th century Supreme Court challenges generally were not decided in their favor. The Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld the segregation of races in schools as long as each race enjoyed parity in quality of education (the "separate but equal" principle). However, few black students received equal education. They suffered for decades from inadequate funding, outmoded or dilapidated facilities, and deficient textbooks (often ones previously used in white schools).

Starting in 1914 and going into the 1930s, Julius Rosenwald, a philanthropist from Chicago, established the Rosenwald Fund to provide seed money for matching local contributions and stimulating the construction of new schools for African American children, mostly in the rural South. He worked in association with Booker T. Washington and architects at Tuskegee University to have model plans created for schools and teacher housing. With the requirement that money had to be raised by both blacks and whites, and schools approved by local school boards (controlled by whites), Rosenwald stimulated construction of more than 5,000 schools built across the South. In addition to Northern philanthrops and state taxes, African Americans went to extraordinary efforts to raise money for such schools.^[111]

The Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and 1960s helped publicize the inequities of segregation. In 1954, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education unanimously declared that separate facilities were inherently unequal and unconstitutional. By the 1970s segregated districts had practically vanished in the South.

Integration of schools has been a protracted process, however, with results affected by vast population migrations in many areas, and affected by suburban sprawl, the disappearance of industrial jobs, and movement of jobs out of former industrial cities of the North and Midwest and into new areas of the South. Although required by court order, integrating the first black students in the South met with intense opposition. In 1957 the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, had to be enforced by federal troops. President Dwight D. Eisenhower took control of the National Guard, after the governor tried to use them to prevent integration. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, integration continued with varying degrees of difficulty. Some states and cities tried to overcome de facto segregation, a result of housing patterns, by using forced busing. This method of integrating student populations provoked resistance in many places, including northern cities, where parents wanted children educated in neighborhood schools.

Although full equality and parity in education has still to be achieved (many school districts are technically still under the integration mandates of local courts), technical equality in education had been achieved by 1970.^[112]

Education in the 1960s and 1970s[edit]

Inequality[edit]

The Coleman Report, by University of Chicago sociology professor James Coleman proved especially controversial in 1966. Based on massive statistical data, the 1966 report titled "Equality of Educational Opportunity" fueled debate about "school effects" that has continued since.^[113] The report was widely seen as evidence that school funding has little effect on student achievement. A more precise reading of the Coleman Report is that student background and socioeconomic status are much more important in determining educational outcomes than are measured differences in school resources (i.e. per pupil spending). Coleman found that, on average, black schools were funded on a nearly equal basis by the 1960s, and that black students benefited from racially mixed classrooms.^[114][115]

The comparative quality of education among rich and poor districts is still often the subject of dispute. While middle class African-American children have made good progress; poor minorities have struggled. With school systems based on property taxes, there are wide disparities in funding between wealthy suburbs or districts, and often poor, inner-city areas or small towns. "De facto segregation" has been difficult to overcome as residential neighborhoods have remained more segregated than workplaces or public facilities. Racial segregation has not been the only factor in inequities. Residents in New Hampshire challenged property tax funding because of steep contrasts between education funds in wealthy and poorer areas. They filed lawsuits to seek a system to provide more equal funding of school systems across the state.

Some scholars believe that transformation of the Pell Grant program to a loan program in the early 1980s has caused an increase in the gap between the growth rates of white, Asian-American and African-American college graduates since the 1970s.^[116] Others believe the issue is increasingly related more to class and family capacity than ethnicity. Some school systems have used economics to create a different way to identify populations in need of supplemental help.

Special education[edit]

In 1975 Congress passed Public Law 94-142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act. One of the most comprehensive laws in the history of education in the United States, this Act brought together several pieces of state^{[clarification needed]} and federal legislation, making free, appropriate education available to all eligible students with a disability.^[117] The law was amended in 1986 to extend its coverage to include younger children. In 1990 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) extended its definitions and changed the label "handicap" to "disabilities". Further procedural changes were amended to IDEA in 1997.^[118]

Reform efforts in the 1980s[edit]

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released a report titled A Nation at Risk. Soon afterward, conservatives were calling for an increase in academic rigor including an increase in the number of school days per year, longer school days and higher testing standards. English scholar E.D. Hirsch made an influential attack on progressive education, advocating an emphasis on "cultural literacy"—the facts, phrases, and texts that Hirsch asserted are essential for decoding basic texts and maintaining communication. Hirsch's ideas remain influential in conservative circles into the 21st century.Hirsch's ideas have been controversial because as Edwards argues:

Opponents from the political left generally accuse Hirsch of elitism. Worse yet in their minds, Hirsch’s assertion might lead to a rejection of toleration, pluralism, and relativism. On the political right, Hirsch has been assailed as totalitarian, for his idea lends itself to turning over curriculum selection to federal authorities and thereby eliminating the time-honored American tradition of locally controlled schools.^[119]

By 1990, the United States spent 2 per cent of its budget on education, compared with 30 per cent on support for the elderly.^[120]

21st Century[edit]

Policy since 2000[edit]

Main article: No Child Left Behind Act

"No Child Left Behind" Was a major national law passed by a bipartisan coalition in Congress in 2002, marked a new direction. In exchange for more federal aid, the states were required to measure progress and punish schools that were not meeting the goals as measured by standardized state exams in math and language skills.^{[121][122][123]} By 2012, half the states were given waivers because the original goal that 100% students by 2014 be deemed "proficient" had proven unrealistic.^[124]

By 2012, 45 states had dropped the requirement to teach cursive writing from the curriculum. Few schools start the school day by singing the national anthem, as was once done. Few schools have mandatory recess for children. Educators are trying to reinstate recess. Few schools have mandatory arts class. Continuing reports of a student's progress can be found online, supplementing the former method of periodic report cards.^[125]

By 2015, criticisms from a broad range of political ideologies had cumulated so far that a bipartisan Congress stripped away all the national features of No Child Left Behind, turning the remnants over to the states.^[126]

Main article: 21st century skills

Beginning in the 1980s, government, educators, and major employers issued a series of reports identifying key skills and implementation strategies to steer students and workers towards meeting the demands of the changing and increasingly digital workplace and society. 21st century skills are a series of higher-order skills, abilities, and learning dispositions that have been identified as being required for success in 21st century society and workplaces by educators, business leaders, academics, and governmental agencies. Many of these skills are also associated with deeper learning, including analytic reasoning, complex problem solving, and teamwork, compared to traditional knowledge-based academic skills.^{[127][128][129]} Many schools and school districts are adjusting learning environments, curricula, and learning spaces to include and support more active learning (such as experiential learning) to foster deeper learning and the development of 21st century skills.

 

Oh, and here is your link....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States

 

B/A

[Whatshername]

I just had to share this as well... our oldest daughter is an evil genius!  She spent election night in the belly of the beast... the Weston Hotel in Denver at the illary election party!  Lol!  She and her friend hit the bar, walked around, politely clapped for the speakers... and watched the room dissolve into tears!       I don't know where she gets it!!!   

[Jaxinjersey]

1 hour ago, Whatshername said:

I just had to share this as well... our oldest daughter is an evil genius!  She spent election night in the belly of the beast... the Weston Hotel in Denver at the illary election party!  Lol!  She and her friend hit the bar, walked around, politely clapped for the speakers... and watched the room dissolve into tears!       I don't know where she gets it!!!   

Haha... Thought Criminal, Jr.!!!  Awesome!!! 

[Whatshername]

3 hours ago, Jaxinjersey said:

Haha... Thought Criminal, Jr.!!!  Awesome!!! 

 

Yes, we're very proud!!!  

 

Enjoy this video of Christmas... Reimagined   

 

 

[RV ME]

On 11/12/2016 at 0:11 PM, bostonangler said:

RV, I think we agree on many more things than you might imagine. Common Core makes me want to throw-up. It is a sick and perverse government program, as are so many. When I speak of education and progressives, I'm not talking about recent history. I gather from your examples that you believe I'm talking about the progress (or lack there of) of education in our lifetimes. I'm not. I'm talking about when education was made available to the masses.

B/A

Thanks for the response, and the link to where you copied this from.  Since you did supply said link I was able to go and read more about the progressivism you tout.  I also went to the hyperlink contained in your first sentence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States ) and after reading the links I believe I see the disconnect we have.  According to your source “Historians debate the exact contours, but generally date the "Progressive Era" from the 1890s to either World War I or the onset of the Great Depression, in response to the perceived excesses of the Gilded Age”.  It appears you are looking at the historical progressive movement (that ended almost 100 years ago) and trying to extrapolate progressivism to those that pre-dated the movement (like the Founding Fathers) and even those that co-opted the name in modern times (modern day liberals).

 

Wanting to learn more, I read the link and found several items regarding historic progressivism to be quite interesting and wonder if you agree with their positions since you have romanticized the movement apparently based on their education policy.  From said link,

 

Progressives repeatedly warned that illegal voting was corrupting the political system. It especially identified big-city bosses, working with saloon keepers and precinct workers, as the culprits in stuffing the ballot box. The solution to purifying the vote included prohibition (designed to close down the saloons), voter registration requirements (designed to end multiple voting), and literacy tests (designed to minimize the number of ignorant voters).^[6]

 

 

 “The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government.^[5]” 

 

And finally,

“While the ultimate significance of the progressive movement on today's politics is still up for debate, Alonzo L. Hamby asks:

What were the central themes that emerged from the cacophony [of progressivism]? Democracy or elitism? Social justice or social control? Small entrepreneurship or concentrated capitalism? And what was the impact of American foreign policy? Were the progressives isolationists or interventionists? Imperialists or advocates of national self-determination? And whatever they were, what was their motivation? Moralistic utopianism? Muddled relativistic pragmatism? Hegemonic capitalism? Not surprisingly many battered scholars began to shout 'no mas!' In 1970, Peter Filene declared that the term 'progressivism' had become meaningless.^[16]”

 

So back to your question of why progressive is a bad word now.  Just looking at the fact that you credit the education system with historic progressivism (which ceased to exist 100 year ago) and the modern day progressive has without question destroyed said education system, I stand by my original answer.  Progressivism became a bad word when liberals co-opted the term to try and hide the fact they are liberals.  I will leave it to you to determine exactly when that was.  Personally I believe it was after their failed attempt to co-opt the term moderate.

 

And as for your thought that we have more in common than I realize, other than old rock and roll you have given me no reason to believe that.  But I will keep trying to bring you around so that maybe someday we will have more in common. 

[Whatshername]

This guy is great!  Enjoy

 

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

We saw him on the news today, too... and yes... hes' really THAT good lookin' in that hat !

Pretty AND smart... gotta love that !

[SnowGlobe7]

LOVE HIM!!!!

[Whatshername]

A portrait of Trump made of delicate Snowflakes!   

[Shabibilicious]

16 hours ago, Whatshername said:

A portrait of Trump made of delicate Snowflakes!   

Wait! What?.....Donald has a little lesbian in him?    Thanks for the bone, WHN.  

GO RV, then BV

[Whatshername]

Enough Already

No one died. No war was lost. No one was diagnosed with an incurable disease. A candidate lost her bid for elected office. She was not entitled to the office. It wasn’t bequeathed to her. It wasn’t “her” time simply because she’s a she. She had to earn it. She didn’t. She lost.

Winning and losing happens all the time in a Republic. Heck, it happens all the time in life. People lose jobs, lose relatives, lose relationships, lose money, lose games, lose weight. People find love, embrace careers, have babies, build businesses, win games, gain weight. Sometimes good things happen to bad people. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Used to be, when troubling mysteries (like losing something one had staked her whole life on) afflicted someone, she’d get on her knees, pray for wisdom and understanding, read the Good Book, go to church, get some heavenly perspective, and go about her business. Now that secularism is the religion, people turn to each other and freak out. Granted, if salvation depended on the smelly hippie standing next to me, I’d freak out, too.

That’s the problem with being a secular humanist. The solutions have to come from “society” and when leftists look around, they’re appalled at more than half of society. So, really, it’s only the special, most enlightened humans that humanists want to listen to — other people just like them. Trump voters fall into the “deplorable” category. They’re people (kind of) who shouldn’t be included in civil society.

Confronted with the other half of their culture, a culture hidden from them by the media, a culture that supposedly no longer exists, Obamabots are withering like the Wicked Witch of the West. So how did stoic, hard-working, yes, Puritanical America turn into a whiny bunch of Frenchies and Sprockets?

1. Abandoning God and organized religion. When a person’s perspective stops at his own experience, his perspective is as limited as his own life. In addition, when one goes to church and half the people vote differently but all answer to God, it is humbling because all know they fall short. No one should get too big for his britches. God sees all.
2. Abandoning team sports. When a player loses a closely contested game against a bitter enemy he may shed a tear and if his coach sees him, he gets yelled at, goes and showers, and knows in his bones that he’s going to get his ass kicked in practice tomorrow and if the loss was due to mental errors — he deserves it. He puts on his shorts, laces his shoes, and goes out and plays. Again. Sometimes, the player even has a horrible, losing season. He plays anyway.
3. Abandoning the bonds of family. When you grow up in the town where the crazy uncle, annoying aunt, and idiotic cousins live, you are constantly being confronted with perspectives you disagree with, but they’re kin so you can’t kill them. Living apart from family means avoiding awkwardness except during holidays.
4. Abandoning shared traditions. The 4th of July parade, the Thanksgiving meal, the baseball games with dad, Sunday afternoon football and dinner with the family, etc. form ways to get all together with all sorts of people from all walks of life. It’s a reminder that some things transcend politics.
5. Abandoning objective truth. Everything’s subjective. There is no right and wrong, there’s only different experiences. Who are you to comment on my experience? Because no one holds any truths as self evident and everyone disagrees about the foundation of liberty and what defines it (“love Trumps hate,” “love means love”, etc. and so on), society turns into a collection of mush-headed emoting kewpie dolls. Squeeze a lefty, eyes and belly bulge in outrage! “That’s not fair! Raaacist! You’re mean!” There’s no connection to the frontal lobe, all thinking is done in the gut, the amygdala, and the groin. “But I feel it! It must be truuuue.” Cue whiny voice.

The world has had enough of President Mom Jeans and was not interested in being hectored by grandma for four or eight years. It’s time to get some **** done and that means sucking it up, dealing with the loss, and going to work. Either you’re the loyal opposition, or maybe, just maybe, there’s some common ground that can be found so that something wonderful can happen.

We’re Americans. We’re better than cry-ins and safety pins and foot-stomping marches that end in self-destructive riots in Democrat-run cities. I blame Boomers. They coddled these overgrown babies. Kick them out of the nest, force them to get a job, and have some freaking self-respect. Only two generations ago, young Americans were freeing the world from fascists and they weren’t doing it with buckets of salty tears. They did it with blood and sacrifice.

Everyone is out of the closet. Everyone has equal opportunity. Now, it’s time to build a future so that the selfie-stick generation has something to look at and live in besides themselves.

Enough. Time to grow up, America. Instead of looking inward, look outward. There’s a great nation filled with amazing people innovating, building, and growing, and they’ll accelerate this greatness now that the boot of the government is off their necks. It’s something to celebrate, you’ll see– but one must take a breath between sobs and open one’s eyes to see.

https://spectator.org/enough-already/