Page 103 of 368 FirstFirst ... 3539399100101102103104105106107113153203 ... LastLast
Results 1,531 to 1,545 of 5515
  1. #1531
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetengine View Post
    How does this help the food companies ? What does it actually DO for them ?
    This is way to allow companies to respond faster to likely supply-chain disruptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogindy View Post
    Loosens those annoying & job killing regulations, that's what.

    Um... Don't they know those regulations are there because peanut, shellfish, and other allergies are potentially fatal and expensive to deal with in lawsuits?
    According to the link, common allergens would still need to be labeled.

    https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-const...s-foods-humans

    First, the FDA is providing flexibility for manufacturers to make minor formulation changes in certain circumstances without making conforming label changes, such as making a change to product ingredients, without updating the ingredient list on the packaged food when such a minor change is made. For purposes of this guidance, minor formulation changes should be consistent with the general factors listed below, as appropriate:

    Safety: the ingredient being substituted for the labeled ingredient does not cause any adverse health effect (including food allergens, gluten, sulfites, or other foods known to cause sensitivities in some people, for example, glutamates);
    Quantity: generally present at 2 percent or less by weight of the finished food;
    Prominence: the ingredient being omitted or substituted for the labeled ingredient is not a major ingredient in the product;
    Characterizing Ingredient: the ingredient being omitted or substituted for the labeled ingredient is not a characterizing ingredient; for example, omitting raisins, a characterizing ingredient in raisin bread;
    Claims: an omission or substitution of the ingredient does not affect any voluntary nutrient content or health claims on the label; and
    Nutrition/Function: an omission or substitution of the labeled ingredient does not have a significant impact on the finished product, including nutritional differences or functionality.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  2. #1532
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    There is no person called Connor Lamm that I am aware of.

    Oh, Conor Lamb

    Trump needs a spell check badly.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  3. #1533
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy View Post
    I imagine they learn other things, but their very nature is exclusionary, either racially or religiously. If all children can't benefit from it, why should we be spending tax dollars on it?

    Private schools by their very nature are discriminatory. So yeah, they don't deserve my tax dollars
    This assumes all private schools are religious or racially segregated.

    You may think they don't deserve your tax dollars. Do they deserve to suffer financial consequences from a government-mandated shutdown?

    Should we also make sure that the incredible amounts of spending we're doing in response to the economic consequences of a massive and necessary government shutdown are limited to the people who deserve it. Who should get to determine that?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    Are these to be considered businesses or religious institutions? The answer could dictate whether the tuition they collect could be considered profit for services rendered or religious contributions, in which case appropriating part of the money earmarked for public education could be illegal.
    "This is not the time" is a common phrase used by the right to preserve a status quo that favors their ideology.
    Something may be a common phrase, but this is an exceptional and unusual circumstance, so if there's ever a time to say "this is not the time" it's now.

    With the Republicans in the White House and the Senate, I would expect liberals wouldn't want COVID-19 funding limited based on the culture war preferences of elected officials and their base.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  4. #1534
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainEurope View Post
    Well, no offense but: It's not news that the UK does not know what it is doing in this crisis, is it? You guys have now more daily infections than any EU country.

    UK certainly has not erred on side of caution..so if we are using 7 days free of symptoms before coming out of isolation..we can probably assume at least 7 days needed.

    What are you advocating the safe period should be?

  5. #1535
    Fantastic Member The no face guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    There isn't a perfect solution.

    If you take away charter schools, and vouchers, all that happens is that less lower-class and middle-class students have the opportunities afforded to kids from upper-class families. There will never be the political will to ban private schools.

    A ban on vouchers and charter schools can prevent some of the siphoning of the bright lights, although that is worse for those students.

    If public schools are hindered by policies that make it difficult to deal with problem students, the solution wouldn't be to bring in more "bright lights," whose parents wanted to take them out of schools where problem students cause disruptions, but to give public schools more flexibility to deal with disruptive students.
    Well we can argue the merits of private vs public schools, I am not entirely opposed to private schools for religious reasons. (Be they Catholic/Islamic) as that is part of Freedom of Religion. I was, as we debated, incensed that the money that was to be utilized to support poor income students with technology for online learning was being re-directed, for apparent other means.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    Well there is something to be said for creating an academic environment where doing well, and good grades is encouraged, rather than shamed by the student body. One major advantage (in the UK, at-least) of private schools is you can kick out the trouble pupils very easily. In state schools... it is NOT easy, and takes up so much time for the teachers and senior staff.
    Yes, there is no doubt some advantages. Canada is more in line with the UK, in that we do not seem to have the whole religious/secular war going on like they do in the States. I have a friend who is an educator who taught at a private school in the UK, and although I am of working class origin, I've become friends with some people who grew up fairly affluent.

    They tell me that the reason parents send their children to private schools is not necessarily that they will be getting a better education, but rather that the become part of community of parents who all have affluent connections into the best law and financial firms. In short, it's like a club where the parents of these children begin to hang out in the same social circles, and set their children up to the best Universities, and career firms through the social connections they've made.

    I can't statistically validate this, but if its true, than I am of course against it, as it sets up an elite community that becomes alienated from the regular citizenry....but they are going to live in separate neighborhoods anyways...so what can you do.

  6. #1536
    Ultimate Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    On memorial day, Trump's approval rating in his favorite poll, Rasmussen, dips to 43 approve, 55 disapprove. Quite low to the lowest he has been with them.

    The last week was quite brutal for him in polling.

    Attachment 97000
    Nate Silver at 538, who always adjusts Rasmussen for it's methodology, says this is really 38%.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  7. #1537
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    11,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    Nate Silver at 538, who always adjusts Rasmussen for it's methodology, says this is really 38%.
    Under 40% seems like it might be a threshold of some sort. I don't think he has been that low since he was running in the 2016 primaries, but that seems like so long ago I am pretty sure I could be wrong.
    "Theory: The Phoenix doesn't corrupt the characters, it corrupts the authors." Gambit, King of Thieves

  8. #1538
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    This assumes all private schools are religious or racially segregated.

    You may think they don't deserve your tax dollars. Do they deserve to suffer financial consequences from a government-mandated shutdown?

    Should we also make sure that the incredible amounts of spending we're doing in response to the economic consequences of a massive and necessary government shutdown are limited to the people who deserve it. Who should get to determine that?
    Enough of them are religious or racially segregated.

    They wanted the perks and benefits of not being beholden to tax payer money and standards, but that cuts both ways

  9. #1539
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,248

    Default

    I've seen arguments that if Trump loses in the next election, he'll run again in 2024.

    Nathaniel Rakich of 538 sums it up.
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/c...gain-in-2024/]

    Basically, he'll have his following, and be younger than Biden, so he won't be seen as too old. He'll also be able to chalk up a loss to historically unusual circumstances, while it would be better for his legacy to have a comeback narrative than a one-termer. It might also delay the inevitable tell-all books.

    Jamelle Bouie is also worried.

    Jeet Heer of the Nation thinks it can help him complicate any efforts at prosecution.
    Running for presidency after loss will be way for Trump to fend off the law. He will label any legal move as politically motivated (as he does now) and say he's victim of witch hunt.
    So, what do you guys think? Is there a strong possibility that Trump would try again? What would the response be? I doubt there are many fans of the idea here (and Trump fans would probably claim he's likely to win in November so it's a moot point) but it's a weirdly plausible scenario.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  10. #1540
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've seen arguments that if Trump loses in the next election, he'll run again in 2024.

    Nathaniel Rakich of 538 sums it up.
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/c...gain-in-2024/]

    Basically, he'll have his following, and be younger than Biden, so he won't be seen as too old. He'll also be able to chalk up a loss to historically unusual circumstances, while it would be better for his legacy to have a comeback narrative than a one-termer. It might also delay the inevitable tell-all books.

    Jamelle Bouie is also worried.

    Jeet Heer of the Nation thinks it can help him complicate any efforts at prosecution.


    So, what do you guys think? Is there a strong possibility that Trump would try again? What would the response be? I doubt there are many fans of the idea here (and Trump fans would probably claim he's likely to win in November so it's a moot point) but it's a weirdly plausible scenario.
    Depends. Can Trump make a run while in jail? A lot can happen in 4 years, and I think trump's supernatural luck has to run out eventually at the rate he is going.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  11. #1541
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've seen arguments that if Trump loses in the next election, he'll run again in 2024.

    Nathaniel Rakich of 538 sums it up.
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/c...gain-in-2024/]

    Basically, he'll have his following, and be younger than Biden, so he won't be seen as too old. He'll also be able to chalk up a loss to historically unusual circumstances, while it would be better for his legacy to have a comeback narrative than a one-termer. It might also delay the inevitable tell-all books.

    Jamelle Bouie is also worried.

    Jeet Heer of the Nation thinks it can help him complicate any efforts at prosecution.


    So, what do you guys think? Is there a strong possibility that Trump would try again? What would the response be? I doubt there are many fans of the idea here (and Trump fans would probably claim he's likely to win in November so it's a moot point) but it's a weirdly plausible scenario.
    No. There’s no path if he loses.

    Whoever wins is inheriting an awful economy and the fallout of Covid. It’s such a mess they whoever gets the job is going to likely end stronger then they started. Which pretty much cute Trump off because there will be metrics to say “this was where we were at when you left, this is us now”.

    When the prior President does well, you need something totally different to him to get a “what if” out there.

    You don’t want a known commodity that compares poorly

  12. #1542
    CBR's Good Fairy Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    8,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    I'm having trouble seeing the benefit of a system that makes it easier for schools to kick out students.
    You have to be able to administer discipline, and an environment where your position there is a privilege, not a right, controls behaviour a lot better. There is no point wasting energy on the 1% who really don't want to learn, than let the teaching of the other 99% suffer. It helps control bullying (to a degree), because again, you can kick them out.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    I see the potential for abuse by administrators whose main focus is increasing their overall academic scores over serving students who may require more attention or a unique educational strategy.
    That sounds like a very American thing. I could be wrong. I don't recall schools here caring too much about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChadH View Post
    They're being paid to educate all of their students, not just the ones who are easier to deal with.
    True, but that's a two way street. They are being paid by ALL students, and if a few are requiring more "attention" (RE: discipline) that also failing all the rest (who pay the same) to get subpar attention. Either way it's not 'fair', so I'd favour on the side of those there to learn, not those who don't want to be there.

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    From a bluntly pragmatic perspective, it depends on what your overall goal and philosophy about education is;
    My philosophy is education is a right and privilege, but it's not one you should keep indefinitely. Easier to say, harder to implement. Thank god I'm not the education secretary.

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    There are some who lean more towards the idea of perfecting the most potentially worthy students and thus are fine with “winnowing out the chaff,” while there are others who see it more as trying to pull everyone up as much as humanly possible. Both see their goal as being one beneficial to both the greatest number of individuals and to society - the former school of thought seeking to cultivate and sharpen the elite (in terms of educational desire and natural skill) by slowly consolidating resources onto them, while the latter school of thought seeks to do a “rising tide raises all boats” by flooding all students with knowledge and e$ustion, whether they want it or not.
    I think there is a middle ground. YES, you can increase the overall "team" by the better performances of the upper end raising the bar, and pushing and challenging the rest. But the most effective way to increase the most, surely, is sometimes chopping away the 1% who are seriously hindering the progress of the majority?

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    Yeah there are “trouble kids,” but enough of them are “troubled kids” that I’ve seen get their lives genuinely improved that I don’t mind the ones who choose to try and be “lost causes.” School cultures vary without any set design or type - and frankly, I’ve heard of enough sub-par private schools to think debate over probably depends on researchers with a lot of letters after their name.
    I mean let's not try and completely remove any fault with the troubled kids. Some are just bad apples.

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    On charter schools, I will admit I’m a little conflicted in that I know that some are attempting to help troubled students and are finding some success, but that just as many have turned into complete failures that fall apart because it turns out that, shock of all shocks, running education like a business means you’re going to suck at education. And a lot of private schools and charter schools operate under faulty premises about “dangerous students” that do greater damage - busing and “forced integration” is proven to have positive benefits that people need to face up to instead of desperately looking to be afraid of. And a lot of “elite” (as in money) private schools are just as much about ensuring privileged kids coast to adulthood as anything else.
    I think charter schools are a great way to both reward academia, and help low income students get a great leg up in life; as admittance is heavily based on grades, not money.

    Quote Originally Posted by The no face guy View Post
    They tell me that the reason parents send their children to private schools is not necessarily that they will be getting a better education, but rather that the become part of community of parents who all have affluent connections into the best law and financial firms. In short, it's like a club where the parents of these children begin to hang out in the same social circles, and set their children up to the best Universities, and career firms through the social connections they've made.

    I can't statistically validate this, but if its true, than I am of course against it, as it sets up an elite community that becomes alienated from the regular citizenry....but they are going to live in separate neighborhoods anyways...so what can you do.
    Maybe at the super high end private schools in the UK that's the case, but I went to a private school, as did my sister; and I saw zero evidence of any of that going on. Maybe my parents are just super chill, but I never saw friends parents behaving that way to others when I was round their houses. In fact, from memory, getting parents to do anything involving free time for anything linked to the school seemed more a hassle, than an 'opportunity' they leapt on. Remember most private schools are not Eton. There are way more Waitrose than there is Harrods.
    Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 05-25-2020 at 03:59 PM.
    "We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."

  13. #1543
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Depends. Can Trump make a run while in jail? A lot can happen in 4 years, and I think trump's supernatural luck has to run out eventually at the rate he is going.
    Seriously.

    Trump doesn't have the ability or cunning to deal with institutional enemies. He's used to suing or settling with all his problems. Once the government starts working like it should, and he's no longer protected by a bullshit Justice Department ruling, he's done

  14. #1544
    Fantastic Member The no face guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    Maybe at the super high end private schools in the UK that's the case, but I went to a private school, as did my sister; and I saw zero evidence of any of that going on. Maybe my parents are just super chill, but I never saw friends parents behaving that way to others when I was round their houses. In fact, from memory, getting parents to do anything involving free time for anything linked to the school seemed more a hassle, than an 'opportunity' they leapt on. Remember most private schools are not Eton. There are way more Waitrose than there is Harrods.
    Hmmm, I suppose their is quite of a difference between the UK and Canada, as you are much farther along on two tier systems in health care and education. As a result, in part of our Francophone influence, Canada does seem to swing further to the left than the other big Anglophone countries (the USA, UK, Australia) For the most part, our private schools are either for the very wealthy or for religious affiliation, there is not much in the way of private middle or working class schools in Canada, it's seen as sort of a big no no.

    But were consistently ranked as one of the top achieving education systems in the world, so our public schools are doing something right, for now at least.

  15. #1545
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    21,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Depends. Can Trump make a run while in jail? A lot can happen in 4 years, and I think trump's supernatural luck has to run out eventually at the rate he is going.
    Supernatural luck? Nahhhh, more like the help of a ridiculously complicit Republican Party that’s coddled, enabled and protected Trump since day one of his presidency. Without that support, he would’ve been abandoned and thrown out with the trash after the Mueller hearings. I want to say the clock is ticking down on his run, but the GOP will move heaven and earth to save his orange ass because keeping him in office keeps them in power, and that’s all they care about.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •