FACT CHECK: Bush Slashed Funding For School Violence Prevention
FACT CHECK: Bush Slashed Funding For School Violence Prevention
In the past few weeks, the nation has been stunned by the rash of school shootings in Colorado, Wisconsin, and at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennyslvania. President Bush said he was “saddened and deeply concerned” about the shootings and plans to convene a summit of education and law enforcement experts to discuss federal action that can help communities prevent violence.
Bush’s rhetoric doesn’t match his record. He has consistently recommended pulling funding for school violence prevention programs:
– In 2006, Bush proposed a five percent cut for youth and crime prevention programs. Bush’s 2005 budget proposed a 40 percent drop in juvenile-crime prevention, following a 44 percent cut in 2004.
– The Bush administration has repeatedly recommended eliminating federal funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities State Grants program, which works on juvenile-crime prevention.– Since 2001, Congress has voted to retain the Grants program over the administration’s objections, but at reduced levels. Funding for the program was $439.2 million in 2001 but fell to $346.5 million this year, with $310 million recommended for 2007.
– More than half the nation’s school districts receive $10,000 or less per year to fight violence and substance abuse — “too little to make a difference” according to an Education Department official.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If he didn’t cut these programs, we would still have the same shooting at the same schools. The unfortunate thing about this is you folks want to blame Bush so bad, that you forget that the people that did the shooting are the people responsible. Not the first time a liberal has done that. I shouldn’t be surprised.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:47 pmAs somone who knows about his, their reasoning behind cutting the funds was that school violence and drug use were down (untill recently) and that the schools didn’t need the programs any more…DUH! “It’s workin’ just fine, cut their funds”. Bush Logic at its best.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:47 pmSeems like I read somewhere that they also slashed a Dept of Homeland Security [DHS] funding on a new personnel program..
The GOP were against Child and National Security before they were for it.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:48 pmYes, if only the federal government had spent more money! None of these shooting would have taken place!
October 4th, 2006 at 3:51 pmWhy does President Bush hate our children?
October 4th, 2006 at 3:53 pm#1 and #4…it figures you would be against school safety. Maybe we should hand out guns to school children.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:56 pmI hope this is sarcasm. If not. How would money prevented the shootings? Try and pay off the killers. “Please, don’t kill any kids today. We will give you money.†Metal detectors. You are planning a suicide. You walk through it and start shooting. Guards. You liberals don’t want to arm them because someone could get shot. So how would more money prevent a crazy suicide killer from doing what he wants to do.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:58 pmBush: “Nothing is better for thee than me.”
October 4th, 2006 at 4:00 pmI’m all about school safety but not about blaming the president for something he could not have prevented.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:00 pmcheck my homepage for foley/hastert page video
October 4th, 2006 at 4:01 pmYes, if only the federal government had spent more money! None of these shooting would have taken place!
Comment by Exley
Well we see that the home schooling and being an extremist fundamentalist who was mad at god sure didn’t help did it?
And yes Foleys caucus does seem to be a huge waste of money not to mention what they paid Chalabi or lost in Iraq.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#7…so let’s do nothing…great idea.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:01 pmYes, if only the federal government had spent more money! None of these shooting would have taken place! – - The question is, could just one of them been avoided?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:01 pmKevin don’t know Exley well do he?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:02 pmGet this into the PA races! Many many people here in the rural areas considered ultra-conservative have been deeply moved by the incident in Lancaster County.
While the recent school shootings involved adults who wouldn’t have been directly affected by these programs, there are plenty of other school violence, safety and security issues occuring daily.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:04 pmYes, it’s very unfair to ask a do-nothing president to do something…like show some leadership.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:04 pm– More than half the nation’s school districts receive $10,000 or less per year to fight violence and substance abuse — “too little to make a difference†according to an Education Department official.
If you know ANYTHING about the money workings of schools, you realize how awful that number is. That’s “LESS THAN WORTH OF ONE STUDENT”
Most school districts get paid roughly $10000-$15000 per student.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:04 pmso much for family values.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:05 pm“Bush’s rhetoric doesn’t match his record”, that is their motto
October 4th, 2006 at 4:07 pmHome schooling is not a great idea, yes it may save money but kids need social interaction, not to be raised in a box with a TV and the left behind series of armageddon books.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:07 pmThe solution isn’t more gun control, it’s more guns!
October 4th, 2006 at 4:07 pmHow about money for (and committment to):
equitable schools
mental health treatment parity
research on causes of school/student violence and early warning signs
education on early warning signs for police, school officials, general public
prevention programs based on research on causes
If we are going to be a capitalistic society, then we have to PAY for the things we value! We have to put our collective money (taxes) where our mouth is.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:09 pmNow this I support the president on. Education funding from the Federal government should be reduced, if not eliminated completely. Education funding should all be from the state level. The Teacher’s Union should be killed as well as it provides a disservice to our children.
Not having the ability to hire and fire based on merit is sick. Not being able to give pay raises based on merit is very wrong as well.
It is time for our education system to be completely revamped. It is obviously not working at all right now. Having the Feds fund it plus the teacher’s union wrecking our education system is where most all the blame should go. Bush is correct, but he should go further and eliminate all federal funding for education.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:11 pm“FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!
“Arm the principal! Arm the teachers! Arm the children! NO GUN CONTROL IN THE USA!! Rah! Rah! Rah!
October 4th, 2006 at 4:12 pmMost school districts get paid roughly $10000-$15000 per student.
Comment by jake3988
Not in Ohio, where our school funding scheme was declared unconstitutional about 12 years ago and our friendly neighborhood Republican governor and cohorts in the state legislature have made NO effort to change.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:12 pmComment by Kevin — October 4, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
_________________________________________________
Kevin, the bigger picture here is the fact that this Ass-in-chief has previously bankrupted 4 – count em’ – 4 companies into the ground!
You start counting up ALL the programs this jerk has cut over the past 5 years – just to pay a portion of the interest on the debts he’s running up – and you start to see what this jackass is really about.
The WH’s accounting methods (as reported by Lou Dobbs) would land any other company’s CFO in jail.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:13 pmKevin meet Exley Ex Lax.
He tends to run at the mouth and is an Apostle of the Limbaugh Wisdumb [Do drugs and criticize those that don't]
October 4th, 2006 at 4:13 pmNo Exley, your simpleton logic does not work. This is not a dollars and cents issue, it is about focusing on the facts and the issues. This is where this administration, and congress for that matter, have dropped the ball.
But fools like Exley continually say: “Who could have seen that coming.” The answer is, everyone with a modicum of common sense can see these things coming, especially if you don’t ignore the warnings.
Now, is it the government’s job to raise children? No. Just like its not the governments job to “keep us safe”. (for the Constitutionally impaired, it is the governments duty to provide a “common defense” and there is a monumental difference). But it is the government’s job to distribute tax dollars to programs that promote the general welfare. And it is the government’s job to perform in-depth non-partisan analysis and studies and then act upon the findings.
The problem with folks like Exley is that they whine and complain about tax dollars being spent on social programs but have no complaints about tax dollars being spent on Corporate Welfare, or Bogus Subsidies, or on outrageous “defense” contracts.
Exley complains not about the insane amount of tax dollars spent (most if not all through debt) on the killing of innocent people as long as morally reprehensible people are allowed to profit on it. Rather, Exley will spew its vitriol on any attempt to implement or improve programs that benefit society and strengthen it from the inside, especially when it pertains to the nations youth. Well, unless that “social program” is intended to force children to read the bible or go down on their knees to worship some entity or another.
The difference that Exley is either too dense to see, or too morally bankrupt to admit is – do you direct your resources towards the betterment of society and the whole population, or do you direct the resources towards institutional murder and to the exploiters of society?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:14 pmBush needs to be taken out of education decisions for America’s children immediately. There are no greaters heros in this country than teachers. They deserve better pay, better treatment, better working conditions, and a strong union.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:15 pmoh Jeebus here comes Roger Roger to spoil the flaming bush bus wreck over the cliff to armageddon..what is it now Roger?
Can’t you let the progressibes just enjoy their ride on our trip to bush hell? you guys just gotta rub this disaster in dont ya?
More wars? huh? look I just wanna take a nap before bush drives off the course and over the cliff ok?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:16 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
One thing for sure, cutting funds isn’t helping to prevent violence in the schools! If you cut military operational readiness funding, the military will be less able to handle some challenges. Same goes for violence prevention programs helping to prevent violence, no rocket science there, thats not even Republican or Demorcrat.
Texas Juice
October 4th, 2006 at 4:18 pmI saw Lil”w” on the news a short time ago talking about this. He sure looked like he was hopped up on a little Jack Black,looks like he’d be a mean drunk to be around. None of his “Sycophantic Followers” dared ask him why he’d cut the funding over the last few years!I wish someone would stand up and ask him “Mr. President,how much have you had to drink today”?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:18 pmAnd what fill up the bush bus wreck with home schooled fundie Carl Roberts who molests kids? what are you crazy Roger??
The bus of freak show crazies is full enough Roger, besides george is too drunk to stop to think about it..
October 4th, 2006 at 4:19 pmRoger Roger
October 4th, 2006 at 4:20 pmWhat exactly have you NOT supported the President on?
The Teachers’ Union (correct punctuation provided, BTW) cannot protect incompetent teachers IF the administration and school board (regular citizens) follow procedures. I have been a teacher and a school board member. I’ve seen teachers fired for incompetence.
The problem with the federal government in education is that it creates all these mandates and requirements for local schools WITHOUT funding. Local schools have almost no control of finances because of federal and state regulations.
It is extremely difficult to pay teachers on the basis of merit because you can’t measure the “product” the way you can in business. Those students (and their parents) have minds of their own, unlike factory “widgets”.
Yeh and they ever shutup on the bush bus wreck to doom, always whining about this or that when the worlds coming to an end? whas up with that anyway? Your gonna bitch all the way to hell Exley while voting for the drunk driver?
Yarrrrrm walk the plank ye mealy maltworm!
October 4th, 2006 at 4:23 pmBUSH, the educatrion president???? Give me a friggin break. Education IS a national security issue. Think about it.
Texas Juice
October 4th, 2006 at 4:23 pmBush’s philosophy: We can save money by creating the illusion of safety, instead of spending it on safety itself.
This way there’s more money in the treasury for him and his cronies to loot. See? It all makes sense now.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:23 pmIt is typical of conservative-idiot ‘small-government’ types to bash and federal spending on education and other vital social programs that do not directly benefit their personal bottom line.
That fact aside, dollars make good and safe schools by providing adequate security and training for staff members and students. If the money isn’t there, nothing can be done. Having extra sets of eyes, ears, cameras, and cell phones dedicated to ensuring the safety of children and teachers alike are invaluable assets, but they cost money. When the funding is cut, the schools have to make hard choices, and that usually means reducing the man-power to a bare minimum or having to forego the latest available technologies.
Republicans continue to endanger our society for power and personal profit. Shameful.
We need better gun control in this country, too. Screw the NRA.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:23 pmSir I have to agree.
The problem with folks like Exley is Folks like Exley.
A convoluted conundrum of inverted inbredism.
Exley we are gonna take donations for your Abdominal Plexautomy.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:25 pmYou liberals are crazy. The story was blaming Bush because he cut some programs that even if more money was wasted on it, the kids would STILL BE DEAD. You all want to blame Bush for anything that is wrong with the world. And some of it is deserved. But this is not one of them. The blame for these incidents belongs to the people that committed the crimes.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:27 pmBush also cut the Cops In Schools program from $20 million to $0.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:27 pmKevin, you don’t know how many children could be saved by funding school safety programs. We can’t know how well school safety programs work until we try them. Do you lock your doors at night? Do you have an alarm system? Do you think that maybe these things help prevent crime or not?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:33 pmKevin, where in the news article did it state that these children would still be dead if funding had not been cut? Do you have any external sources to back your claim? No one refutes that the people responsible have blacme here, but surely you will admit that if deterrrents THAT NEED FUNDING TO EXIST were in place, the chance of the shootings happening would be lowered.
And remember, these aren’t inner city school shootings, so none of that claptrap ‘well, they are going to kill each other anyway’ bs applies here. (Really doesn’t EVER apply)
Honestly, the conservative motto of “I got mine” gets sicker everyday.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:38 pmI guess you better get on the phone Kevin and call Rummy with your new found wisdom, “Mr Rummy imagine wasting money on shielding humvees and kevlar vests when your just gonna get your arm or leg blown off anyway?” said Kevin. The Crazy.
Say Kevin how much has the US spent on Iraqi schools and prisons? The mess called Afghanistan? Bremer lost 8 billion and I don’t hear a peep from the GOP. War profiteering, Cronyism, still silence from the GOP. 20 million bucks for a Gala, 45 million for smear campaigns.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:40 pmSpending money on violence prevention in schools is just as silly as spending money on pre-emptive strikes, huh Kevin?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:46 pmFor one, I’m pretty sure the Amish dobn’t use federal funds for their schools. Secondly, it was a one room schoolhouse, no room for a metal detector.
Realistically, there are looneys who want to hurt people no matter how much money you throw around. I don’t know what the answer is, but I have a feeling that subjecting kids to a search and a prison-like metal detector every day upon entrance to school has got to have some demoralizing effects on them. And just like the security system and lock on your house (as mentioned by the poster in #42), those devices are deterrents, not prevention.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#41 – Clint,
October 4th, 2006 at 4:48 pmW has sent in the military recruiters in to replace the cops. Unfortunately, that does not work in Amish schools.
Actually, all kidding aside – children are an asset to our society that we cannot allow to be at risk. Without crossing the religious tenets of particular groups, all school children should be protected, even if it means stationing someone with a bow and arrows or a club at the door.
We don’t just blame Bush. We blame the NRA, Leo Strauss, the GOP, and anyone who ever voted for them or supports their idiotic policies. I can guarantee that each and every one of those murderers was a fan of the NRA.
Check out their vehicles. Expect to find an “NRA Lifetime Member” bumper sticker right between the “Bush/Cheney” decal and the “Support our troops” ribbon.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:49 pmYeah, It’s only the second amendment. And The kids would STILL BE DEAD.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:49 pmAgain, you crazy liberals have me wrong. I’m not against spending money to protect kids in school. But unless you have armed guards at the doors of each school in the USA then the type of violence that happened this week would have still happened. Do you want that? And I’m not advocating spending less money on education. I am advocating spending smarter. More money does not mean better education. I don’t see how Bush is to blame for these crimes. You would rather blame the President than the people that committed the crime.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:59 pmCut taxes = less money for research + less money for prevention programs + less money for police + less money for prisons + less money for mental health intervention + less money to “buy” more valuable teachers.
Republican = the selfish party
October 4th, 2006 at 5:00 pm#49….statistically speaking it’s very difficult to shoot someone if you don’t have a gun in your hand.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:02 pmSo you get to pick witch one of the Bill of Rights we fallow. Didn’t you crazy liberals accuse the administration of that last week.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:04 pmMore money does not mean better education.
That’s like saying more money in your paycheck does not mean a better family life so make sure you tell your boss not to give you a raise.
The money is NECESSARY although it may not be SUFFICENT! This administration has provided NOTHING that is either necessary or sufficient.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:04 pmKevin, by you logic Why do we spend more money on national defense?
Spending money on defense won’t prevent us from being attacked!
October 4th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#54 – Kevin,
October 4th, 2006 at 5:13 pmThat’s the first usage of “fallow” I’ve seen in years. That describes the minds of the children so brutally murdered by the NRA this very week – “fallow ground”, that is what this great nation was built upon. Did a Republican say something like that?
Now you blame the NRA insted of the people that walked into the school and killed the kids.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#58….we’ve come full circle…right back to the original nonsense statement.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:18 pmWhat is wrong with the NRA?
I am not a member, but a group that simply supports our right to own guns doesn’t seem like a huge problem for anyone. Are they just a bad group because you don’t believe in our right to own guns? Do you think that we would be safer if we banned gun ownership? We already ban drugs, but those that want to do them still do. We already ban gun ownership from felons, yet many still have one. Basically, our right to own guns isn’t the problem since most all gun owners are law abiding citizens. The problem is the felons getting out of jail early and our mental health services failing in there job to protect society from those that are mentally unstable and may inflict harm to themselves or others.
Anyways, not sure why you brought up the NRA.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:35 pmBesides,
Me having my glock .40 caliber handgun and my shotgun by my bed only endangers someone stupid enough to break into my house. Then again, they should be afraid if they are breaking into my house.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:37 pmVIDEO: Head of NSA Under Reagan Tells Congress the Way to End the War Is to Impeach Bush
October 4th, 2006 at 5:38 pmSomeone posted this link several months ago and I thought it was worth recycling. Check it out at http://www.ot-mp.net
October 4th, 2006 at 5:44 pmRoger_Roger,
Beings that the vast majority of fatal accidents with firearms involve idiots shooting themselves, let me be the first to say “good riddance”.
P.S. How do I know that you are an idiot, because only a fool publicly boasts about the strength of their defenses thereby allowing anyone to easily plan to circumvent them.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:44 pmSee, we can prevent an attack on the US. The liberals are unwilling to prevent it. But smartly spending money on defense and offense will prevent attacks on the US.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:45 pmKevin,
I’ll bite, name one “liberal” who is unwilling to prevent an attack.
Oh, and for the record, who was in control of the Whitehouse, Senate, and House of Representatives when we WERE attacked? Seems those cats were both unwilling and unable to “prevent” an attack. Shouldn’t you be challenging them?
October 4th, 2006 at 5:49 pmYou have a gun problem
because the Goverment are distabalising society to enable fear to control you
October 4th, 2006 at 5:50 pmNative Americans Criticize Bush’s Silence
Response to School Shooting Is Contrasted With President’s Intervention in Schiavo Case
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64317-2005Mar24.html
October 4th, 2006 at 5:51 pmRepublican logic:
Spending more money on the US Military is the right thing do do because it increases our ability to defend ourselves.
Spending less money on “Safe and Drug-Free Schools” programs is the right thing to do because we need to . . . . Um. . .. Errr. . . . . Why do you hate America by asking me hard questions!
October 4th, 2006 at 5:51 pm“See, we can prevent an attack on the US. The liberals are unwilling to prevent it. But smartly spending money on defense and offense will prevent attacks on the US. ”
October 4th, 2006 at 5:54 pmYou prevent attacks by stopping the root causes for hatred. Besides, the neocons wanted since atleast 1998 Clinton to do something about Iraq and the republicans were more interested in Clinton’s sexlife. And on top if all no group of people benefitted more from 9/11 than the neocons. Can’t understand why people are afraid to point this out. 9/11 was an essential event for the neocons. Time to wake up.
Many greatly needed social programs have been cut. Which is surely to the delight of conservatives.
A good moral test of any society is to see how well the most vulnerable members of that society are doing.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:55 pmThe old lie about unregulated gun ownership is still alive and well among the GOP neaderthals. Tell me then, if having more guns makes us safer than having fewer guns, then how many guns do each of us have to own until crime disappears altogether?
This psycho was a normal guy until the day he snapped. And when he snapped, he was prepared for a long standoff. He packed 600 rounds of ammunition. Tell me Kevin, how much do you carry around?
October 4th, 2006 at 5:57 pmWow,
So most of you that just came out and said that the Repugs and Bush have stripped away our rights are now saying that we need our right to own guns taken away. I am perplexed by this.
The vast amount of gun owners are law abiding citizens. You want to take the guns away from the mass because of a few bad apples that used them inappropriately?
I have used guns since I was 6 years old. I have a passion for target practice and hunting as is the same with most all gun owners.
If you really honestly want to reduce the risk of children using guns in school, you need to add more secuirty to schools. Allow all administrators and teachers to carry a firearm. That in itself would deter most all potential children from going to school with a gun.
Simply removing our right to own firearms wouldn’t do a single thing to stop those that wanted to use a firearm illegally. Just like drugs, those that want them will get them regardless of the law. In the end, making a firearm our of simple metal supplies is real easy anyways. There really is no way to remove firearms, but there is a way to protect us against those that wish us harm. I am sure this all sounds like it is coming out of left field for you big leftwing elitist living in New York city. Where I live, I would guess that at least 95% of all homes in my community have at least 2 firearms. Many have at least 10+ firearms (myself included). Of course we live in fly over country and my town has a border of cornfields. I grew up around here and we actually were allowed to bring firearms to school back in the day. We would check them in in the morning. That way we could head straight from school to go hunting for pheasents and ducks with our friends. Today, most just leave there shotguns in there cars in the parking lot as the school doesn’t have a gun check anymore. In the fall I would still guess that over 40% of all male students have a shotgun in there car. We have never had anyone die from a firearm in or around a school either. WHY? because firearms aren’t the problem, it is the people themselves.
I guess that is the big difference. I am not a believer of victimhood and entitlement crap. People are responsible for there own actions. Trying to blame people’s problems on other things is wrong.
Blaming a shooting on a gun is like blaming a pencil for bad spelling.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:58 pmIf you live in rural America, you have a completely different perspective on guns. I was always against them. Now, I know people are going to have them no matter what kinds of controls are implemeted. People are going to keep guns, and if you try to take it, they will shoot you.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:00 pm#68 – Kevin,
October 4th, 2006 at 6:00 pmThe problem is that national defense is not being thought out in a rational manner. Here W is spending uncounted billions on a worthlerss missle defense system while ignoring a slow boat from China (Or, God forbid!, North Korea). Our ports must be defended! Our schools are critical as well.
A lot.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:00 pmAnd again you all don’t understand anything. I never said everyone should have a gun. I’m saying that everyone has a right to. It’s in the Bill of Rights. Number 2 as a matter of fact.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:05 pmEasy access?
That is such a lie. It was easy 25+ years ago. Today, you need to apply with the local sheriffs office and there is a waiting period. You also need to register all your handguns. Getting my permit to conceal and carry my handgun was even more difficult. I am not sure how much more difficult they can make it at this point. I guess the idea of removing all fireamrs from Amerca sounds good to those on the Coast that live in huge cities and see wildlife only on TV. Funny how they have such opinions on things like Hunting even though most have never even seen a true wild Elk, Moose, or Grizzly Bear.
And don’t start with the “but how about handguns” crap. I have and continue to hunt with a handgun for deer every single year. So simply removing my handguns isn’t that easy. You are then removing an American pasttime and 1 more way for me to feed my family. You are also removing 10’s of millions of dollars in money we pay every year for licenses and permits. It really isn’t as easy as you may think. In the end, banning the ownership of handguns (or all guns) simply means that all the law abiding citizens will now not own firearms, but all those that don’t care about the law will still own firearms. It will also have the added effect of making us law abiding citizens easier targets for those that wish to cause us harm with there guns.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:06 pmSo, what’s your plan?
October 4th, 2006 at 6:11 pm#82 and 83 Why is it that only one part of the 2nd amendment is touted but not the first.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Keep and bear Arms is all the rage but where is the well regulated Militia?
Militia as defined by Webster’s:
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
Why not adhere to the entire amendment and not just the parts you like.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:17 pmStrangely, both comments #1 and #2 are spot on:
– 2 out of 3 atrocities were committed by adults who wouldn’t have been included in juvie-crime-prevention programs and
– if you’re going to cut preventitive programs that appear to be working, then you can expect to see the negative results in a few years.
So while the information is factual, it isn’t fully topical. We’ll blame Bush for a major school violence outbreak… but we have to wait three years. It’ll naturally be in the spring (damn those young-buck hormones!), but any bets on where it will be? I’d guess at either Louisana or Wisconsin…
October 4th, 2006 at 6:25 pmThe high cost of US labor is why we have a lot of outsourcing to China. And the UN has been so supportive of the US. It’s done a top notch job of keeping Nukes away from NK. But you CRAZY LIBERALS only see the US as the worst country in the world. You are too stupid to realize that I’m not a Christian.
ROTFL.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:33 pmRoger_Roger and Kevin,
I see you both are avid fans of “guns” which is fine and dandy. Just to clarify something for you, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (the first 10 amendments commonly referred to as the bill of rights) states the following, in full, without edit:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of just guns, it guarantees swords, bows, clubs, etc… (nuclear weaponry?)
The real issue is the use of guns during the act of a crime. If either of you truly believed in what you say, that it’s not the guns but the people, then there is only one logical solution, and that is to make it dramatically more severe a crime if a gun was used or carried during the act. A hypothetical example would be robbery without a gun (unarmed) would be punishable by 3 years in prison while robbery with a gun (armed) would be punishable by 20 years in prison.
By your own logic, which I agree with for the most part by the way, that is the only solution. So the question you have to ask yourself is why the NRA vehemently opposes such.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:35 pm#84 – Kevin,
October 4th, 2006 at 6:41 pmWhere religeon is not an issue, place metal and explosive detectors at the entrance of every school in the nation. Where religeon is an issue, place guards armed with weapons to defend the children – a caldron of boiling oil would be nice (Chrispy – chrispy!) where members of the NRA are concerned. In turn, require that all persoins getting a weapons permit have an IQ of at least 63 (You’re out!).
October 4th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Why would religion be an issue? If you want to treat kids like prisoners have at it. And you don’t know my IQ but I know you liberal elitist feel about people you don’t agree with.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:50 pmRepublican solution to school violence: Less money for studies, prevention, detection, programs, and awareness. More money for image, illusion, and delusion. Great solutions from the party of ideas!
October 4th, 2006 at 6:59 pmI’m afraid I have to agree with number one here. There isn’t really a way to prevent these sorts of random events no matter how much money you spend. Well, unless we make every school a fortress, but what would that do psychologically? You’re way more likely to die on the road than in a school shooting.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#1 apply the same logic to terrorism then, why don’t you??
October 4th, 2006 at 7:04 pmI still can’t believe that you liberals are still not blaming the men that committed the crimes. It’s more important to bash Bush than to admit that people are reasonable for there own actions.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:06 pm#95 same question to you then – why in the hell are we spending $2 billion a week under the dumbassed assumption that it’s going to make terrorism go away half way around the world. you people are so logically inconsistent it baffles the god-damned mind!
October 4th, 2006 at 7:06 pm#97 – I can’t believe you idiots are still blaming old people and little kids, who we are killing every day in Iraq, for something that some Saudis and Yemenis did to us – - why in the hell can you not see that your very argument, when applied to one of your own positions, shows you for the very, very dumb fucker you are.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:12 pmI don’t think his kids would attend a public school. Or public duty in the military.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:14 pmTheir upper class, ya know.
#93 – Kevin,
October 4th, 2006 at 7:14 pmSome religeons forbid firearms. Others forbid the taking of human life. In either case, one must find a bypass. A caldron of boiling oil triped by the assaulter is OK in the case of the latter. Being smashed to a pulp meets the rerquirements of the first. Neither requires a firearm.
Third degree burns are ok but not killing?
October 4th, 2006 at 7:18 pmcome on – one of you ignorant, subservient cowards tell me how it’s ok to spend billions half way around the world to prevent random attacks by crazies, but it’s not ok to spend any here to prevent the very same kind of thing- show me your big strong intellectual powers
October 4th, 2006 at 7:20 pm#99 Kevin – Brillian, my friend – starting tomorrow you get $2 a day – thanks for helping save the American dream
October 4th, 2006 at 7:22 pmdid the short bus just unload at the TP homepage?
October 4th, 2006 at 7:24 pmThe world is flat!
October 4th, 2006 at 7:41 pmI do still, very, very much, want one of these guys to tell me how it’s pointless to spend money here at home to protect our kids from school shooters, but OK to spend the billions, and the lives, and the limbs, on their “war” on “terror”. If you think that the domestic program to prevent gun violence in schools can’t possibly work, then how on God’s green Earth is the “WOT” supposed to ???????
Explain to me why the same logic doesn’t apply to both. Explain to me how you can deny one and assert the other in the same breath without being a complete hypocrite. (you know, Jesus really had it in for the hypocrites, the only category of people he really ever bagged on)
October 4th, 2006 at 7:48 pmEver read the left behind series of books?
October 4th, 2006 at 7:52 pm…they can’t answer yet, cause they’re waiting on their dope fiend cult leader to tell them what to say on the radio….but they will, i’m sure they will….
October 4th, 2006 at 7:53 pm#107 – Kevin,
October 4th, 2006 at 7:53 pmThird degree burns are permissable if they are self-administered. The murders of innocent children are not. A simple warning sign is all that is needed to deter an NRA coward.
I will admit to being wrong. I figured I could find intelagent debate on this site. But CRAZY LIBERALS don’t know how to debate. Just tout the ol’ line. “Something bad happen, it’s Bush’s falt†or “people died so Bush must have lied.†Oh well. Maybe someday you will learn that it’s ok for people to not agree with you 100%. Till then, See you all in the funny papers.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:55 pm#134 – Kevin,
October 4th, 2006 at 8:01 pmYour spell checker appears to have blown a gasket!
never said bush, said hastert, bush is hasterts boss, chain of command, the buck.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:06 pmHe’s taking money from everywhere he can so that his friends at Haliburton, et al, can keep stealing the big bucks. I’m thinking this country is headed for a huge collapse.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:03 pmI was almost going to ask if all righties are retarded but I stopped myself…not because it is politically incorrect but because it is obvious. Derrrr, my name is Kevin…I like toast…
October 4th, 2006 at 10:06 pmBTW all, as a sexual assault advocate, Jason IS right. Foley is not a pedophile, he is in fact a sexual predator. To continue to call Foley a pedophile is inaccurate. Get your fact straight and then continue to rant and rave.
What Foley did is wrong. What those who chose to cover up for him is wrong. But please, let’s begin to use the proper vocabulary.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:19 pmLisa, legally he is a pedophile. Knock off the interference. Advocate, my ass.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:28 pmCan we agree that this admn. simply doesn’t care?
they don’t care if people die
from war or the lack of medicine
or too little money for police or levees
or increased mercury in the air and water–
they do care about power and money
and tax cuts for gas and oil co’s.
about controlling the military and the government
about war and tax cuts for the rich
about spying and holding incommunicado and torture
about concealing lies and corruption and
hundred-billion dollar profits for Halliburton.
But we, the people, are not part of their concerns.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:31 pm#144, then show me your reference.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:36 pmIn contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,
There is the colloquial term.
Any sexual act that involves a minor and an adult is unlawful. Individuals who are below the age of consent are considered by the law to be unable to give consent to any type of sexual activity
That is the legal term, pervert.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:44 pmAccording to the DSM-IV: Pedophila is described as:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (ages 13 years or younger).
B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behavior cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
C. The person (sicko) is at least 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
There is obviously more to know and more to say HOWEVER, a person at least 16 years of age who is attracted to a prepuescent child IS a pedophiliac. Not the other way around.
And yes, I am a sexual assault advocate. Get your facts straight people, otherwise you have empty arguments…….exactly what the repubs are counting on. CHANGE YOUR VOCABULARY! SEXUAL PREDATOR is the correct term for people like Foley.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:56 pmLisa, did I not say legally or did you ignore that to make your point? You suck as an advocate.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:59 pmRemind me to reject you if my son is ever molested…you suck.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:00 pm#147, then you need to define what “age of consent” means. Marriage, or sexual activity. Now who’s the pervert?
I’m not meaning to be combative people, I just want to frame our argument. Repulicans are expert at re-framing arguments…..I just don’t want us to get hung up on vocabulary and definitions that may eventually haunt us.
Therefore, my original suggestion, we get away from the psychological definition of pediphile (which I don’t entirely agree with) but move toward common language of “sexual predator”.
If we keep arguing semantics with one another, we won’t get anywhere so let’s get real, let’s get literal and lets get these guys where they live.
Have you read the comments from people who defend these molesters on freerepulic.com? If you haven’t, look (and look deep because not all threads are equal). There are actually people who are defending these molesters. That’s all I’m trying to present……….common language. Not arguing definitions, okay JPark?
October 4th, 2006 at 11:07 pm#151 Are you kidding??? Marriage and sexual activity have the same age of consent. 18. This is federal. This is the law. A pedophile is legally someone over 18 having sex with someone under 18. Granted, the pervert did not (maybe) have sex with the pages (though I think he probably did and it will come out). At the least, he is a sexual predator and I think he is much more. However, if you are assuming he is the least dangerous (sexual predator) you need to get a new job. Where there is smoke there is fire and as an advocate you have to assume your client is not the only victim and that your client is not the youngest victim.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:14 pmBush has run this play so many times now, I can’t believe he still gets yardage on it.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:23 pmHe says one thing to the cameras and mikes, but as soon as the lights dim, and the sound is cut, he slinks into the White House and cuts the funding for the program he just touted.
He gets the headlines and the quotes he wants, and then he goes on to do what he always intended while the media is reporting on those headline lies.
#154 What is disturbing is that she considers herself an advocate while defending pedophiles.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:48 pmMA –
October 5th, 2006 at 1:56 amHuff and puff as you may,
the guilt of your party will not go away.
Cast your aspersions and plot your diversions,
like good brother Tom DeLay
I keep on seeing and hearing the Republicans, including Mighty Hypocrite himself in #156, refer to Gerry Studds’ apparently consensual gay relationship with a 17-year old page, all the while ingoring the fact that Studds was censured by Congress at the same time as GOP Representative Dan Crane, who had a relationship with an underage female page. Talk about hypocrisy! And why have Republicans blocked calls for an investigation of how Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, a male hooker with no previous journalistic experience, managed to get passes to attend White House press conferences and also visit the WH on days when no press conferences were scheduled?
October 5th, 2006 at 2:18 amMighty’s definiton of Repubs as “the Party that boots their members to the curb if they are caught in perverted behaviour” hardly holds any water, since Hastert and others apparently knew of Foley’s behavior for quite some time and are only disowning him now that his predatory ways have been all over the media.
And before I go, in reference to Kevin’s comment, “I figured I could find intelagent(SIC) debate on this site,” sorry, Kev, you can’t find “intelagent” debate here because no one but you knows what it is. However, you can find “intelligent” debate here, but you are already showed your unwillingness to look for it by your repeated references to “Crazy liberals” and making sweeping (and usually wrong) assumptions that liberals don’t want this and that.
Bye, for now; I’m off to Europe next week.
In liue of looking at this from a school funding issue, why not look at it from a National Security issue? Whats the difference between a suicide car bomber and a suicide child shooter? They both attack and terrorize innocent people.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:34 amSorry – In LIEU of looking at this from a school funding issue, why not look at it from a National Security issue? Whats the difference between a suicide car bomber and a suicide child shooter? They both attack and terrorize innocent people. On a broader scale, Bush and Republican policies fail to keep people safe.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:36 amThat Bush is big on GRANTs as a funding tool.
I don’t trust the Grant process. I have worked on projects funded by grants and I have tried to get into the grant writing business.
I have seen how money is given to political buddies not the best organization. I have seen how the money can be wasted and there is no accountablility.
So, shame on Bush for cutting funding. And shame on the American people for accepting his favorite alternative: Grants!
October 5th, 2006 at 6:49 am[...] FACT CHECK: Bush Slashed Funding For School Violence Prevention [...]
October 5th, 2006 at 9:00 am#156 – “An excellent definiton of Repubs should include: the Party that boots their members to the curb if they are caught in perverted behaviour”
Really? When was Fmr. Rep. Bob Barr “kicked to the curb” when his sex-capades of the 90’s were publicised? He wasn’t. The Republican party kept him in office.
How about Rep. Dan Burton who fathered a child with a woman not his wife, and has been re-elected multiple times? How’s THAT for family vaules!?!
Or Rep. Ken Calvert, sued as a “deadbeat dad”, and in 1993 he was caught by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute and attempted to flee the scene. I wonder why he wasn’t “kicked to the curb”.
Maybe Rep. Tim Hutchinson? He divorced his wife of 29 years to marry a congressional aide he was having an affair with. Was he kicked to the curb? Not by the so-called “family values” party!
Mighty Aphrodite, I think you should stop throwing stones when your glass house is oh-so very fragile!
Catch you later, sweetie!
October 5th, 2006 at 9:07 amIts the Guns Stupid! People are inherently violent but firepower makes a difference. when was the last time a knife weilding person killed 5 kids or a cop being stabbed to death? people kill people but Guns Kill MORE people.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:17 pmON TOPIC: Will someone from the right please attempt to respond to the actual substance of my post #129 (MA, thanks for using my parenthetical as a springboard for your stupid stuff, but as usual, you missed the meat)
October 5th, 2006 at 1:53 pmI would especially like to hear from one of the stone-cold pragmatists that decalred the thread useless, because “you can’t spend money to solve such a problem”. I really want to hear how/why that very logic does not apply to the “war” on “terror”.
The fact of the matter is that, in reference to the issue of origin in this discussion, the perpetrators of the shootings ARE directly responsible. There is no debating that. That said, however, it is common knowledge that individuals with these propensities exist, both among children and adults. Their very existence warrants some form of protection from them. Cutting funding for preventative and protective measures makes no sense and shows an alarming lack of concern and/or regard for the safety of students. (Granted, this issue is null and void in regard to the Amish, which I would know having grown up and still having family in Lancaster, PA.) This is an example of the discussion of a larger, more general issue stemming from one or a few specific incidents. It is not granting the gunmen immunity for their actions at all, in cases where they don’t self-destruct first, they deserve full punishment.
What I would love to see some time is at least the attempt at a discussion that leaves political parties behind and analyzes the policies of this administration based soley on criteria of right and wrong. That criteria could be based on the teachings of Christ, that would suit me fine although I personally identify as neo-pagan. But I think if you just threw these things out there stripped of political identity and asked the average American to judge them based on their personal definition of right and wrong, the response would be interesting. America has got to get over this liberal vs neo-con, us vs them mentality that’s been foisted upon us and start independently evaluating and monitoring the actions of this government or our constitutional democracy will be lost, to the detriment of us all. This is not aimed at anybody, left or right, it’s just how it is. MY personal proclivity is to lean left but I am just very weary of all this fingerpointing and name calling and division that we’ve all allowed to be built between us as Americans that diverts us from our much more important role as stewards of our constitution and the final and ultimate check on government power.
(I am a frequent lurker here. I would participate much more but my internet access is limited to breaks at work these days, unfortunately, so I’m not just post and disappear entity. )
October 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pmI’m so sick of Democrats and Republicans I that I just want to camp out on the steps of Congress with a box of laxatives and a cauldron full of baked beans.
This article is not nearly deep enough to address this issue. The fact that a government program has a pretty name is not sufficient proof that it is all good, all necessary, or all worthy of our tax dollars. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act sounds lovely, but I think we all know what a beast that turned out to be.
Tell me what “juvenile crime prevention” means, for God’s sake. What is the money being spent on? We don’t just give a check for $400 million to the Magic Juvenile Crime Prevention Man and send him off into Urbania to save the day. I want to know if any of that money is being spent to illegally search kids’ lockers or vehicles or to randomly drug test kids who don’t deserve such an invasion of privacy.
How much of that money is being spent to research the effectiveness of BUGS BUNNY cartoons in preventing gum-chewing during recess? I’m sure there are some legitimate functions being performed thanks to the funding that is at issue here, but how am I supposed to know from this article? There’s no reason to assume that some ridiculous and unrelated side-projects weren’t slipped into the mix when the law was written.
As for the grants, who are they giving the money to and what are the restrictions on how it can be used?
To blame George W. Bush for the school shootings is a pitifully stupid thing to do. For those who are so desperate to sink your teeth into little Georgie, there are a myriad of other ways that you can gratify your bloodlust, like – oh, I don’t know – the deficit, the War (on Civil Liberties), the War (in Iraq), the infestation of our politics with religion, and so on and so forth.
These school shootings are a result of the fact that our children are raised in a world that aggressively tries to get into their minds from the moment they’re old enough to say, “Mommy, buy me that!” Throw in a little bad parenting and the inevitable cruelty of the everpresent bullies, and it’s bound to happen.
After the first wave of shootings, the people who ran our schools got on their toes. It was hard to even express a violent thought in school without going into lockdown – remember all the stories of kids who were suspended for drawing a picture that scared somebody? I think we’ve grown more comfortable in the intervening years and we let down our guard.
But really, to assume that the federal government was the only thing standing between our children and mass assassination is so far beyond ridiculous that it sounds like something George W. would say in a drunken stupor.
The American media and our political eaders are collaborating to turn us all into a shriveled populace devoid of any neurological function whatsoever. May God obliterate the Republican Party forever. May he turn the quivering remnants of the Democratic Party into vapor. We have to do something new, or this country is going to DIE. We can feel it, the internal rot. It’s happening and there is nothing that we can do about it, so long as we continue to send these fat, secure attention-whores to Washington, DC.
We need a prophet, like the ones in ancient Jerusalem, who would stand in the streets and cry to the heavens, This nation will be destroyed if we do not change our ways! It’s not because of the gays, it’s not because of the rock n’ roll, and it’s not because we’ve forgotten our Judeo-Christian heritage. It’s because we have allowed an aristocracy to settle their rotund and oft-sat-upon backsides into the seats of power.
That aristocracy has a name. That name is REPUBLICRATS and they will chew us up and spit us out without so much as a tip of the hat if that’s what it takes to stay in power.
The word “revolution” implies a circular, and therefore recurring, movement. We completed the first in 1776. Here’s hoping that we’ve almost finished the second.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:01 pmYour children must die so the NRA may profit!
October 5th, 2006 at 10:49 pmRE. Kevin.
Typical of the repugs. They know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.
October 6th, 2006 at 12:29 amSilly silly democrats. The solution to violence is more guns. It will make us safer. If people are using semi-atomatics, allow fully atomatics. See? Why not sell weapons to everyone, so we can all be safe. In fact, why don’t we give guns to the school children, so they can protect themselves. Have you people forgoten 9-11, why do you all hate America?
A Left Wing who is afraid of trigger-happy gun nuts.
October 6th, 2006 at 2:08 pmSome suggestions for BUSH & crazy Repugs to protect our childrens
October 8th, 2006 at 12:56 pm1. Fence Bill for ALL US SCHOOLS.
2. Have metal detectors & X-Rays every school entry. Every ppl &bags & shoes should be scanned. Of cause have mail boxes for “SHIP HOME” handguns, knifes, scissors and so on.
3. Whitetap Bill. Focus on YOUNG BOYS, they’re very dangerous for REPUGS leaders.
4. Torture Bill for suspects attack our schools. Flight them to GITMO. Beat them, strip them, rape them, let dogs bite them …
5. At war with Chavez. He have connection with the crazy Amish gunman. He’s developing WMDs to attack our shools. And we will have his oils too…
6. Claim victims why they not play hooky in that day. Claim Bill not connect the dots to catch those crazy man. Long live CLAIMISM.
7. For all Repugs leaders to REHAB, they drunk too much to forget that we have children to protect.
It is the parents responsibility at home to raise their children! The schools should not need money for drugs, violence, sex, or any other kind of prevention programs. But if you think they should have these programs then we need to quit paying for the illegal aliens education. The bilingual education, the EL classes, the CELDT, the millions of dollars spent to teach second language learners English and then we would have some tax dollars to spend on other programs! Also, teachers do not have any rights to tell the children what to do without parents getting all up in arms so the kids of today just run wild! So if you are an adult with children start with parenting your own children before asking the schools to do it for you and quit blaming the President!
October 10th, 2006 at 4:44 pmSome kids don’t have parents and some parents cannot adequately raise their children. I am sure many on this website are parents of children and can relate that once they reach their teenage years one has barely any say in where their life goes anymore. Money towards prevention programs; specifically counceling, helps kids in this country beyond what most people believe. Most kids just need someone to talk to and education in the areas of concern, in many schools, these people and educational oppurtunities are decreasing with the budget cuts in their areas. What is most worrysome is that these cuts first affect, and most dramatically affect, the poorest of school which are known for the most violence (specifically gangs).
Our money should be heading towards our children. They are the future of our country, and what could be more important than that? We should be going forwards in our educational system; spending more money on prevention programs, not less.
October 11th, 2006 at 7:29 pmNumber 6, um in several cases the shooters were stopped by teachers who were carrying guns. And how would spending more money have prevented these latest shootings?
October 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pmrelax guys in 2 more years he will be dead to us{george bush}
December 13th, 2006 at 8:27 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pmKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 2:17 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:25 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pmAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 3:12 amPreteen Preteen Model Galleries Pre-Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 2:09 amphones hearing impaired
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:15 amPreteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pmGeorgia
As soon as your recognize that you are able to control your thoughts happiness will come within your reach.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm