nkreed
-
Posts
836 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by nkreed
-
-
You see, this is why your party is in shambles right now.
You want to keep good students in bad schools so you can continue to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars that are used to fund a program that is not even able to get rid of the bad performers. In what world other than far left nutbag world does that even make sense.
Then, to add insult to injury, you use that taxpayer money to pay salaries to teachers who are forced -- as part of their employment -- to give a portion of that money to the unions, which use that laundered money to campaign for the very progressive politicians who keep budgeting more money for failed school systems just so the elected officials and the union bosses can keep their cushy jobs.
You'd have to be a moron of epic proportions to not see and understand that scheme.
Like everything there is a balance to this statement. Basing employment solely on how students perform sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't factor in multiple variables. How many students are in the class? What's the average grade across country, the state, the county,the district, the school? How many students are receiving services in the classroom or being pulled from the classroom? These attributes play a key part in how a teacher may "score" from year to year.
Case in point is Common Core, where a vast majority of testing scores went down. In this example it's obviously not just the teachers fault. However, imagine a classroom where special needs students doubles in a year. Would this teachers' students not perform as well on tests as a result? How about an administrator who doesn't like a teacher (cause in any place of employment this never happens) purposely puts low performers in that teachers classroom? The proposed formulas don't factor this in at all.
Lastly, instead of being ignorant to the stringent rules Unions must adhere to, how about you understand why members pay dues, and what members can do to about the dues that go towards political causes. (IMO, if you don't want to pay the dues in a union, then you shouldn't be allowed to reap the rewards of membership. That means no representation in grievances, you negotiate your own salary, you are fully on your own. But "Right to Work" states say that you shouldn't be forced to pay dues, but can reap all rewards of the Union, including pay raises and representation in grievances (required federal law). But you chose not contribute to the organization that is protecting your rights as a worker...hmmm sounds like conservatives legislatively bankrupting Unions to me.)
-
RICH LOWRY: The Shameful War On Betsy DeVos.
“The controversy over the nomination of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education has been, if nothing else, clarifying.
We now know that working to give poor kids more educational opportunities is considered a disqualifying offense for the Left.”
How great on the surface. Lets forget that poor kids will have really not be given the opportunities to get better education, students with disabilities will be left behind and that the public schools will be forced to pay for it anyway. Poor kids will not have the opportunity to move to a different school because outreach of these programs doesn't reach poor communities. Whether it be purposeful deceit (by government) or sheer lack of resources, it will disproportionately affect those from poorer neighborhoods. Students with disabilities will not be required to be taught at different schools (especially if they are private). Either the private school won't have the resources to provide for disabilities or they won't pay for it (it is privatization after all). The bill is still coming from the taxpayers. No matter how we look at it, the taxpayers in the community pay for it. So if most of the students bus to a different district, then you close the schools in the neighborhood, leaving behind no community gathering place. Kids spend more time at school and a substantial amount of time on buses. There is no educational savings as a result and people in a community without a school are just going to get mad they pay taxes for no schools. These are just my initial thoughts, since no plan is without it's downfalls.
-
They were asked to give their responses. Every single generation thinks it's kids and parents are inferior to themselves.
-
One last inside for Carpenter? Prob not
-
What is this?
-
Screw it. Dynamite the damn team.
-
He was offsides
100 percent correct
-
If you rewind to the made Carpenter kick, you can clearly hear the whistle blow to start the 25 second clock. Just before the clock expired...
-
How often does this really happen?
If you watch the Bills D, actually quite often...
-
76 yard punt return by Reggie Bush. (Did that fill all of your requests?)
-
-
Roughing the passer? Where's Hochuli when you need him?
-
They are really seeing if Gronkowski can run with the ball...
-
Don't worry, you're not the only dain bramaged one here. I'm stuck in near-hurricane territory with the lights flickering and brief cable outages, and I'm worried the Internet will fail me so I won't be able to follow along.
Keep an eye on that storm. A wrong wind gust and it comes to you. Stay safe while partaking in this sh!+ show
-
I'm pretty sure there were a ton of calls by Ed Hoculi because head of officials Dean Blandino was in attendance. This was said in the Bills broadcast multiple times.
That would also explain the 2 roughing the passer penalities on the Bills. (I do agree with the one where the defender landed on the QB's head. I don't agree with the way they enforced that call)
-
I do not understand the call, the flag came out before the play was done and then it was called after the sack?
He wanted to make sure the QB was down do he could make the late hit call he made. Otherwise it would have been part of the sacking of the QB
-
Are all PFs an auto 1st? I don't think they are...
-
He could have had a 60 yarder there
-
The refs called the rule right. But why can you have 4 steps in the EZ & not have it be a catch? Awful rule
Thanks for the .gif 26CB!
This is the rule that applies to that play, IMO:
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5 states: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.Sep 25, 2012
I'm just glad it was preseason and the Bills won anyway...
So we are all in agreement that simultaneous catch is out, correct?
2016 NFL Rulebook: Catch Rule
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
© maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.
If the player goes to the ground before establishing as a runner -- i.e., in cases ofCalvin Johnson in 2010 or Dez Bryant in the 2014 playoffs -- here is what the rule now says: "[He] must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."
So this rule is what states if the above play is a catch. Need to pass A, B and C.
A- The ball is controlled by the receivers hands. Not once does the ball move from his hands, even during the hand fighting by the DB. (at least from what is seen in the .gif)
B- Clearly he has control (from A) and has a 2 steps in bounds.
C- The football move aspect. Here is the gray area of the rule, as Bandit cited: A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps
The keyword in this rule, to me is the -OR-
-Avoiding or warding off impending contact - Fails
-Tucking the ball away - Fails
-Turning up field - Fails
-Taking additional steps - Passes, Little takes 2 mores steps after control is gained. Yes, the ball is contested at this point, but its not a simultaneous catch, he is able to move forward by taking steps and is dragging the defender with him.
He didn't make a football move before the DB got his hand on the ball.
IMO, the football move (per the NFL's rules) is the taking of additional steps after control and two feet.
Again, as has been said way too many times, this rules stinks and is open to a ton of interpretation.
-
Saw the Little catch. I can support it not being ruled a TD. Initially he had both hands on it uncontested, but almost immediately the DB challenged it and Little fell to the ground, losing the ball.
It seems as if your own statement would support it as a catch then.
He initially catches the ball without contest, has control and the instant his 2nd foot is down is the time when the DB gets a hand on the ball. This is a catch in any other part of the field, and possibly even down by contact. But in the NFL, this is not a touchdown... This league has some pretty messed up rules. 
-
I'll hazard a guess that the stadium will be New Era Field @ the Ralph"
-
There is a rail line that goes by RWS. They could extend Metrorail to the Southtowns.
There is no real connection to that rail line as of now. At least, not within walking distance of downtown.
-
Playing football instead of being a pilot???
It's an entirely different kind of job, altogether.
It's an entirely different kind of job. -
Any relative to Ted?
Striker....Striker?...Striker!!!
Trump's leadership team
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
All is well and good when you are in a financial position to do the things you have said. People can be self-accountable, but if they are brought up in the poorest of neighborhoods, there's a good chance they won't make it out. Someone can make all the best choices and still be left with nothing. Look at middle class people before the 08 recession. Likely many made sound decisions financially, the recession hits and bam, a ton of it is gone and their house is upside down. These are the people who made (what was assumed to be) good choices. Now despite their best efforts, they are in a worse position.
Have you looked for a job recently? What sort of pay decrease would you be willing to take to leave a job (to be self accountable). You would be willing to work two PT jobs, not have benefits and survive to move to another job? What you are saying is easier said than done. What if you are a single parent, with healthcare benefits, but hate your boss. Just quit, go get TWO PT jobs, lose insurance, enroll in community college and hope that no one in your family gets sick, That doesn't include arranging for childcare for the extra time away from home and the likelihood of offshifts. I guess what I'm saying is it's easy to say these things from a position of privilege. That's just not always the case.
Now back to those teachers. Are there bad apples? Yep, there always is. Is it possible to rid these from the bushel? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes, but that's to keep administrators in check and only to fire the teachers for just cause. What too many people (probably not you) clamor for are unchecked / unjust firings of "lazy" union workers. It just sounds good to say, "make them accountable" without having a baseline or an understanding of the job. In many cases, it seems that all of the blame is on the teachers only, never on the government or the districts or administrators who sometimes put the teachers in bad spots. It's just easy to apply the lazy claim to teachers.