The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

You do realize that article is talking about deals that Rahm inherited.

 

Not sure how you can blame him for the parking meters, at least he tried to cancel the deal. The same thing with Park Grill restaurant lease.

 

Just because something is "private" doesnt make it bad, just because something is "public" doesnt make it good or vice versa. But when you attack something, you have to start with the facts. The facts are Chicago has significant debt, something that Rahm didnt create. So given that debt, you have to make decisions that maybe you wouldnt make if it wasnt there.

 

People want everything. They want a pretty city with amazing free stuff. Well it just doesnt work that way.

 

Yeah some of that was definitely inherited, but he's proceeded full-bore with charter schools, privatizing CPS janitorial services, etc. The results of these actions are almost always 1) lower pay for workers 2) worse quality of services performed and 3) private companies enriched with public funds at the expense of public services and employees.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah some of that was definitely inherited, but he's proceeded full-bore with charter schools, privatizing CPS janitorial services, etc. The results of these actions are almost always 1) lower pay for workers 2) worse quality of services performed and 3) private companies enriched with public funds at the expense of public services and employees.

 

Thats a lot of generalization. What is your solution. You have a negative budget, how do you propose to either 1) increase revenue or 2) decrease expenditures.

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Yeah the corruption is thick like LA smog in Chicago. Chicago is already taxed to oblivion, there had to be another way then dipping into our pockets.

 

Sure. Giant cuts in the budget. I don't like Rahm much, but he didn't make this problem. Rich Daley did. The tipping point for this being ugly happened a long time ago.

[StrangeSox]

Thats a lot of generalization. What is your solution. You have a negative budget, how do you propose to either 1) increase revenue or 2) decrease expenditures.

Handing public money over to private charter schools doesn't decrease expenditures.

[Soxbadger]

Handing public money over to private charter schools doesn't decrease expenditures.

 

Instead of talking in generalities can you point to exactly what you are talking about?

 

(edit)

 

Screw it I did my own research. Who knows if its accurate but according to this study, charter schools spend less. And quite frankly Im not confident in a study from the University of Arkansas but its your argument to prove (that they cost the same) not mine:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0908-story.html

 

According to a new study by the University of Arkansas, public charter schools in Illinois operate on about 15 percent less funding than traditional public schools in Illinois do. They also serve a larger population of traditionally "disadvantaged" students.

 

The study found that student performance is nearly identical to traditional public schools. For less money, Illinois charter schools are delivering comparable results.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2015 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Lol that debate. The Republican party is officially crazy.

[caulfield12]

Let's say the number was 15% more efficient, and that's possible if charter schools are paying lower teacher salaries and less benefits (medical/pension, etc.)

 

You've got to basically bring the charter/private schools up TO scale quickly...that kind of transition doesn't happen overnight.

 

Let's just say they turned over all the public schools (grounds/facilities) to private/charter schools. Maybe you're getting the savings from fewer administrators, hiring mostly younger (less expensive) teachers and a lot of times charter schools have relationships with Teach for America, for example.

 

There's still the issue with a lot of the very best "inner city" teachers using those schools to gain experience and then leaving for the elite suburban schools and private academies when they've acquired more expertise and competency in their subjects.

 

 

In Kansas City, the one charter school (other than KIPP) that works REALLY well, the two founding members are the former CEO of H&R Bloch (Thomas Bloch, who would make a better president than anyone running) and Barnett Helzberg, former CEO of Helzberg Diamonds.

 

Those guys both got into education not to make a profit from it, but because of the belief that the children of the city deserved a better education and more opportunities in life. A lot of private and charter schools are just as, if not more, poorly run and those administrators and founders are often looking for ways (not always, of course) to enrich themselves at the cost of the students, ultimately.

 

It's just like the prison systems being privatized. It CAN work, but not if PROFIT is the only motivation, because education doesn't have profitability as its first priority and never will (at least it shouldn't). Yes, we can look at the parents as consumers and the students as end products, but that's a rather dark way to think of the profession if you're idealistic about changing the lives of young people.

 

 

[pettie4sox]

Lol that debate. The Republican party is officially crazy.

 

why the f*** would republicans allow cnbc to host a debate?

[StrangeSox]

why the f*** would republicans allow cnbc to host a debate?

Why not? On financial issues they're usually pretty aligned with the cut taxes, cut regulations mantra

 

The moderation was pretty crap though.

 

Here's some of the bigger absolute lies some of the candidates told yesterday. Does this sort of blatant disregard for reality make a showing at democratic debates?

 

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/1...dnesdays-debate

Edited October 29, 2015 by StrangeSox

[pettie4sox]

Why not? On financial issues they're usually pretty aligned with the cut taxes, cut regulations mantra

 

The moderation was pretty crap though.

 

Here's some of the bigger absolute lies some of the candidates told yesterday. Does this sort of blatant disregard for reality make a showing at democratic debates?

 

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/1...dnesdays-debate

 

lmao... wow

 

It's funny how during the debate Rubio said we have 11 qualified people on this stage to run the country. I'll have some of that ganja you're smoking, senator.

[bmags]

Let's say the number was 15% more efficient, and that's possible if charter schools are paying lower teacher salaries and less benefits (medical/pension, etc.)

 

You've got to basically bring the charter/private schools up TO scale quickly...that kind of transition doesn't happen overnight.

 

Let's just say they turned over all the public schools (grounds/facilities) to private/charter schools. Maybe you're getting the savings from fewer administrators, hiring mostly younger (less expensive) teachers and a lot of times charter schools have relationships with Teach for America, for example.

 

There's still the issue with a lot of the very best "inner city" teachers using those schools to gain experience and then leaving for the elite suburban schools and private academies when they've acquired more expertise and competency in their subjects.

 

 

In Kansas City, the one charter school (other than KIPP) that works REALLY well, the two founding members are the former CEO of H&R Bloch (Thomas Bloch, who would make a better president than anyone running) and Barnett Helzberg, former CEO of Helzberg Diamonds.

 

Those guys both got into education not to make a profit from it, but because of the belief that the children of the city deserved a better education and more opportunities in life. A lot of private and charter schools are just as, if not more, poorly run and those administrators and founders are often looking for ways (not always, of course) to enrich themselves at the cost of the students, ultimately.

 

It's just like the prison systems being privatized. It CAN work, but not if PROFIT is the only motivation, because education doesn't have profitability as its first priority and never will (at least it shouldn't). Yes, we can look at the parents as consumers and the students as end products, but that's a rather dark way to think of the profession if you're idealistic about changing the lives of young people.

 

This is a lot of stuff that would seem to be true, but there has been so much research on charters and private prisons. As more and more studies come out, I'm having a really hard time saying that they are some sort of evil system enacted to cut pay when they have started to separate and perform better even with inputs controlled.

 

[greg775]

lmao... wow

 

It's funny how during the debate Rubio said we have 11 qualified people on this stage to run the country. I'll have some of that ganja you're smoking, senator.

I think Hillary will be so bad she revolutionizes the position of President and we in the future change the duties of president to do-nothing figurehead. Can you imagine her in a crisis? Bill Clinton? Yes. Hillary? Please America, don't reward someone for being an alleged liar and alleged mean, rude person. ... Give me Ben Carson for four years, then vote him out for Michelle Obama. At least she is allegedly very kind.

Edited October 30, 2015 by greg775

[bigruss]

I think Hillary will be so bad she revolutionizes the position of President and we in the future change the duties of president to do-nothing figurehead. Can you imagine her in a crisis? Bill Clinton? Yes. Hillary? Please America, don't reward someone for being an alleged liar and alleged mean, rude person. ... Give me Ben Carson for four years, then vote him out for Michelle Obama. At least she is allegedly very kind.

This is a new low.

[Jenksismyhero]

Is Greg Ken M.? He has to be, right?

[StrangeSox]

Is Greg Ken M.? He has to be, right?

he's our own low-rent version but there's too much underlying negativity

[ron883]

So Ken m is one of the best trolls in the history of the internet? Never heard of him until I googled his name. Impressive stuff. Apparently Ken m has been doing it since only 2011. Greg's been trolling for a decade now. He is the most successful troll I have ever personally witnessed on a forum

[shysocks]

So Ken m is one of the best trolls in the history of the internet? Never heard of him until I googled his name. Impressive stuff. Apparently Ken m has been doing it since only 2011. Greg's been trolling for a decade now. He is the most successful troll I have ever personally witnessed on a forum

I posted on the whitesox.com boards before coming here, and they had an advanced troll named soxmania. He played the long game and never broke character. He would develop unhealthy obsessions with a variety of players, most notably Jake Peavy, and would post really bad trade ideas for acquiring them. Usually this would take the form of listing out the full White Sox roster after said trade, followed by some proclamation of that Sox team being a favorite to win the AL central or the pennant. He regurgitated these same ridiculous ideas over and over in multiple threads and would never, never ever respond to the people ripping him to shreds. It was as if they didn't exist to him.

 

Imagine someone saying this in every thread in Pale Hose Talk:

 

Here is my vision for 2016. Trade Rodon and A.Garcia to SF for Susac and Peavy. Susac becomes our starting catcher. Peavy would join Sale, Quintana, Danks, and Erik Johnson in the rotation. Samardzija would not get a qualifying offer from the W.Sox. The option on AR would not be picked up. Sanchez would move to shortstop with Micah at 2B and Saladino at 3B. Thompson would be the RF with Eaton in CF and Melky in LF. Abreu would be the 1B with LaRoche the DH. Beck would the LR and spot starter with Montas and Fulmer in the minors being groomed for starting spots in 2017 or 2018. The W.Sox would add at least one veteran reliever to help Robertson and Duke in the bullpen. I feel Susac would hit .240 to .250 with 10-12 HRs and 50-55 RBIs if he gets 400-425 AB as the starting catcher. Beckham would return as the utility INF with Shuck the #4 OF. Soto would be the backup catcher. This would be my vision for 2016.

 

Then literally one week later, in the same thread...

 

Peavy pitches a gem even though the Giants are out of contention....vintage Jake Peavy. He competes to the end of the season. I strongly recommend the W.Sox trade for Peavy this offseason. A good trade would be Rodon and A.Garcia to SF for Peavy and Susac. Peavy would join the rotation and Susac would be our new starting catcher. The W.Sox have Sale, Q, and Danks as LH starters. They can deal Rodon to help get Susac to improve the starting catcher position. Peavy would be a bonus in the deal and would provide leadership to the rotation. Move Sanchez to shortstop and put Micah Johnson at 2B. Susac and Johnson would improve the offense. Peavy would be the #5 SP. Thompson would be the starting RF. The rotation would be Sale, E.Johnson, Q, Danks, and Peavy with Fulmer being groomed in the minors for a future starting spot. Samardzija and AR would not be brought back for 2016. I think Rodon is a Boras client which makes him expendable.

 

These are two actual posts I just went and found now. I'm wise to the act and it's still mind-numbing. I'm sorry, but when you couple this with the almost complete lack of moderation, it's twice as bad as anything at Soxtalk. The only thing mitigating it is that nobody goes to that forum anymore.

[ron883]

I posted on the whitesox.com boards before coming here, and they had an advanced troll named soxmania. He played the long game and never broke character. He would develop unhealthy obsessions with a variety of players, most notably Jake Peavy, and would post really bad trade ideas for acquiring them. Usually this would take the form of listing out the full White Sox roster after said trade, followed by some proclamation of that Sox team being a favorite to win the AL central or the pennant. He regurgitated these same ridiculous ideas over and over in multiple threads and would never, never ever respond to the people ripping him to shreds. It was as if they didn't exist to him.

 

Imagine someone saying this in every thread in Pale Hose Talk:

 

Here is my vision for 2016. Trade Rodon and A.Garcia to SF for Susac and Peavy. Susac becomes our starting catcher. Peavy would join Sale, Quintana, Danks, and Erik Johnson in the rotation. Samardzija would not get a qualifying offer from the W.Sox. The option on AR would not be picked up. Sanchez would move to shortstop with Micah at 2B and Saladino at 3B. Thompson would be the RF with Eaton in CF and Melky in LF. Abreu would be the 1B with LaRoche the DH. Beck would the LR and spot starter with Montas and Fulmer in the minors being groomed for starting spots in 2017 or 2018. The W.Sox would add at least one veteran reliever to help Robertson and Duke in the bullpen. I feel Susac would hit .240 to .250 with 10-12 HRs and 50-55 RBIs if he gets 400-425 AB as the starting catcher. Beckham would return as the utility INF with Shuck the #4 OF. Soto would be the backup catcher. This would be my vision for 2016.

 

Then literally one week later, in the same thread...

 

Peavy pitches a gem even though the Giants are out of contention....vintage Jake Peavy. He competes to the end of the season. I strongly recommend the W.Sox trade for Peavy this offseason. A good trade would be Rodon and A.Garcia to SF for Peavy and Susac. Peavy would join the rotation and Susac would be our new starting catcher. The W.Sox have Sale, Q, and Danks as LH starters. They can deal Rodon to help get Susac to improve the starting catcher position. Peavy would be a bonus in the deal and would provide leadership to the rotation. Move Sanchez to shortstop and put Micah Johnson at 2B. Susac and Johnson would improve the offense. Peavy would be the #5 SP. Thompson would be the starting RF. The rotation would be Sale, E.Johnson, Q, Danks, and Peavy with Fulmer being groomed in the minors for a future starting spot. Samardzija and AR would not be brought back for 2016. I think Rodon is a Boras client which makes him expendable.

 

These are two actual posts I just went and found now. I'm wise to the act and it's still mind-numbing. I'm sorry, but when you couple this with the almost complete lack of moderation, it's twice as bad as anything at Soxtalk. The only thing mitigating it is that nobody goes to that forum anymore.

Lmao I remember that guy. Too funny. Weren't you easily able to make an account if you got banned? I remember a couple guys who would just add a number to their account each time they had to make a new account. One guy was up to the 50's in his name lol. I also remember a troll named gooch. Different from the guy here with that name

 

[shysocks]

Lmao I remember that guy. Too funny. Weren't you easily able to make an account if you got banned? I remember a couple guys who would just add a number to their account each time they had to make a new account. One guy was up to the 50's in his name lol. I also remember a troll named gooch. Different from the guy here with that name

You could easily do anything you wanted on those forums. Looking back, they sucked and they only got worse as time went on.

[greg775]

So Ken m is one of the best trolls in the history of the internet? Never heard of him until I googled his name. Impressive stuff. Apparently Ken m has been doing it since only 2011. Greg's been trolling for a decade now. He is the most successful troll I have ever personally witnessed on a forum

It's called passion. I'm passionate about many topics. Forgive me for caring.

[2nd_city_saint787]

It's called passion. I'm passionate about many topics. Forgive me for caring.

 

What are your thoughts on Bill Maher, a guy you praised in another argument in filibuster, calling your boy Ben Carson an idiot?

 

I'm aware that Bill Maher also got shat on by other posters here, I just recall Greg really buttering him up as some highly respectable person so I just wanted to hear Greg's thoughts on it.

 

[greg775]

What are your thoughts on Bill Maher, a guy you praised in another argument in filibuster, calling your boy Ben Carson an idiot?

 

I'm aware that Bill Maher also got shat on by other posters here, I just recall Greg really buttering him up as some highly respectable person so I just wanted to hear Greg's thoughts on it.

Why is he an idiot? I've actually had mixed feelings on Maher thru the years. I love religion; he despises it. But I praised Maher for his take on something recently. I can't remember what it is now. Carson is Donald Trump off the steroids. Why not give Carson a chance?

 

I wonder what Maher thinks of Hilly? There's no reason to support Hillary. Just be honest, Bill, and say it's her turn, she deserves it, coronate her, etc. She has nothing to offer this country as President.

[Texsox]

I'm still not clear why you think Clinton has nothing to offer. Her experiences as a lawyer, politician, and Secretary of State makes her as qualified as the other candidates. Even if you dislike her views, which is a legitimate reason, saying she has nothing to offer seems shallow.

[Texsox]

It's called passion. I'm passionate about many topics. Forgive me for caring.

 

You express your passions as a troll. Now I personally believe every good forum needs a troll or two. You provide so much entertainment around here. I especially enjoy the times when we agree. Then I take a long look in the mirror and think WTF? Greg and I agree!? I must be wrong! I am even certain you agree with a lot of your positions, others I think you grab a side just to be a contrarian, something else I also enjoy.

 

Having a greg775 around here is great, having dozens would be a disaster.

[greg775]

I'm still not clear why you think Clinton has nothing to offer. Her experiences as a lawyer, politician, and Secretary of State makes her as qualified as the other candidates. Even if you dislike her views, which is a legitimate reason, saying she has nothing to offer seems shallow.

Mainly because of her penchant for lying and her insensitivity toward people and issues. Also all those reports of what a despicable person she is. People blame the messenger rather than consider where there's smoke there's fire.