If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   U.S. Department of Education drops the terms "mother" and "father" from its student aid forms. To be replaced by "MILF" and "Baby Daddy" most likely   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 120
    More: Stupid, U.S. Department of Education, financial aids, secretary of education, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, marital status  
•       •       •

3688 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 May 2013 at 9:34 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-11 10:38:35 AM

zabdorff: BTW, my last comment was the first thing I thought of based solely on the headline; DNRTA.  I have no problem with non-traditional marriages being recognized by a federal institution.


I don't either. There are, however, other criteria (such as the printing cost of the change). Seriously, choice of words on a form are critical to gay marriage being recognized? Seriously? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most monogamous gay couples have a "husband-wife" personality dynamic? The ones I've known have all had.

If you just have to, print an errata stub sheet to go with the form.

Printing costs are a sore point with me. Some years ago I did some accounting work for a local municipality. There was a very minor proof error (i-e transpo on one word) on an internal form they wanted 1,000,000 copies of, and the department in question shredded the 1,000,000.copies and had the entire run reprinted. I saw the bill for the new print job. Not pretty. Your tax dollars at work.
 
2013-05-11 10:39:50 AM

ravenlore: Yeah, that's unfortunately something to which they only pay lip service. They just want the government spending spent on things OTHER THAN human services and mass transit, basically


so... Libertarian-ism? Constitutionalism? what-to-do ?
 
2013-05-11 10:40:06 AM

utah dude: no those are the things i HATE about the republican party, dawg. i LIKE THE 'REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING'... agenda they half-push.


Describe the REDUCED GOVERMENT SPENDING agenda they pushed, half or otherwise, during the Bush administration.

/"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney
 
2013-05-11 10:41:39 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no those are the things i HATE about the republican party, dawg. i LIKE THE 'REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING'... agenda they half-push.

Describe the REDUCED GOVERMENT SPENDING agenda they pushed, half or otherwise, during the Bush administration.

/"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney


no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.
 
2013-05-11 10:41:52 AM

Abox: zabdorff: BTW, my last comment was the first thing I thought of based solely on the headline; DNRTA.  I have no problem with non-traditional marriages being recognized by a federal institution.

But isn't that hostile to traditional marriage?  You know, because the two sides are 'support traditional marriage' and 'support gay marriage'. You can't do both.


I support extra spicy marriages with ranch sauce.
 
2013-05-11 10:42:47 AM
The farking Moonies are defending "traditional marriage?"  The Onion couldn't make this shiat up.
 
2013-05-11 10:45:26 AM

utah dude: ravenlore: Yeah, that's unfortunately something to which they only pay lip service. They just want the government spending spent on things OTHER THAN human services and mass transit, basically

so... Libertarian-ism? Constitutionalism? what-to-do ?


Well, if you self-identify as Libertarian, you're going to get lumped in with Republicans or worse...

I dunno, man. i seriously don't. I happen to be a libby-libby-libtard. While I don't exactly share your quandary, i DO get where you're coming from. And I don't have an easy answer for you :-(
 
2013-05-11 10:47:12 AM

Vangor: Makes sense to. Several of my students have single parent households, a few have same-sex couples as parents, and others are with grandparents, not to mention step-parents or foster families for many. Assuming the heterosexual, nuclear family structure is a stagnant view for educators or those involved in education policy.


Wow, you work in the most diverse class ever, minus the statistical improbability. Can we worship you human being?
 
2013-05-11 10:48:25 AM

ravenlore: I dunno, man. i seriously don't. I happen to be a libby-libby-libtard. While I don't exactly share your quandary, i DO get where you're coming from. And I don't have an easy answer for you :-(


armed revolution against oppressive rich business owners?
 
2013-05-11 10:49:07 AM

Fizpez: If you think about it this is probably going to "hurt" more kids in a non-traditional family than it helps.  If you have two income earners in that household it wont matter if its mom and dad or mom and mom's special friend, both are going to count against you getting some of that sweet, sweet student loan money.


Not correct Mom's special friend does not count because he/she is NOT the child's LEGAL GUARDIAN.
 
2013-05-11 10:50:01 AM

utah dude: ravenlore: I dunno, man. i seriously don't. I happen to be a libby-libby-libtard. While I don't exactly share your quandary, i DO get where you're coming from. And I don't have an easy answer for you :-(

armed revolution against oppressive rich business owners?


That would be OWS if OWS grew a set.

i'mokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-05-11 10:51:51 AM

encyclopediaplushuman: Krieghund: I'm ok with this.

[lh3.ggpht.com image 379x214]
/me too


parents / guardians = goodly

This is getting perilously close to the place where people need to begin to think about the way they speak.
I can see a great deal of push-back coming.
Language, is in someways like children - everyone can, doesn't mean you don't have to watch them.
Language is the basis for our societys - when we speak it we enforce it's meanings and entrench the understandings of it.
When we stop using racial slurs (for example) it's the first step towards meeting on level grounds - we stop seeing the target at less than they really are.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.


In my life I've met a fair amount of "Government Officials"  -have yet to meet one that is outright stupid though.  Have a minimum of faith.  It'll serve you well.
 
2013-05-11 10:53:39 AM

utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.


Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?
 
2013-05-11 10:56:46 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?


Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

crookedtimber.org
 
2013-05-11 11:07:25 AM
What the Fark? Showed up expecting a hot Milfy thread.... leaving disappointed.
 
2013-05-11 11:13:31 AM

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]


Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations
 
2013-05-11 11:16:24 AM

moothemagiccow: Which parent will successfully earn the prize that is the Parent 1 slot? What shame will come to the runner-up and occupant of the Parent 2 line?


To be resolved by thumb-wrestling.
 
2013-05-11 11:21:39 AM

leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations


Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.
 
2013-05-11 11:25:39 AM
We're not born of test tubes

Yet

How come our government is determined not to 'offend' the .0001% and to offend the 99%?
 
2013-05-11 11:27:26 AM
How about "donor" and "host"
 
2013-05-11 11:30:38 AM

thaylin: leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations

Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.


Initiated, yes. By the time it gets through congress it's not quite the same thing. Every member of congress has their own little pet project they want for their own state or district. How do you think the navy gets stuck with ships they don't want?
 
2013-05-11 11:31:00 AM

Clemkadidlefark: We're not born of test tubes

Yet

How come our government is determined not to 'offend' the .0001% and to offend the 99%?


This offends you?  You must have more sand in your vagina than a Berkeley Womyn's Group watching a Girls Gone Wild infomercial.
 
2013-05-11 11:36:25 AM
M-O-O-N.  That spells NGTRTFA.
 
2013-05-11 11:36:39 AM

leevis: thaylin: leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations

Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.

Initiated, yes. By the time it gets through congress it's not quite the same thing. Every member of congress has their own little pet project they want for their own state or district. How do you think the navy gets stuck with ships they don't want?


Clemkadidlefark: We're not born of test tubes

Yet

How come our government is determined not to 'offend' the .0001% and to offend the 99%?


So generic labels offend you? If so there is something majorly wrong with you.
 
2013-05-11 11:43:43 AM
When hasn't it been "parents/guardian"? Been that way here for the last 16 years, at least.
 
2013-05-11 11:43:47 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Their tendency to explode debt and drive us into recession whenever they take control, and them do everything in their power to hamper economic recovery when they are out of power?


wait, so rampant spending when republicans do it hurts the economy but when democrats do it, it helps?

ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]


congress makes laws and sets budgets.  Regan had largely liberal congresses.  Clinton had largely conservative congresses.
The only thing the president has control over in regards to a budget is putting his signature on it.
 
2013-05-11 11:50:23 AM
Mudda Fadda?
 
2013-05-11 11:52:02 AM

o5iiawah: congress makes laws and sets budgets. Regan had largely liberal congresses. Clinton had largely conservative congresses.
The only thing the president has control over in regards to a budget is putting his signature on it.


So why did fiscal conservatives biatch so much that Obama was going to destroy the economy? He should be irrelevant according to you.

And btw, Bush had a conservative Congress until 2007 but still racked up $4 trillion in debt in 6 years. So, are you going to admit you're wrong, or are you just going to throw Bush under the bus as a RINO?
 
2013-05-11 11:57:02 AM

Vangor: Makes sense to. Several of my students have single parent households, a few have same-sex couples as parents, and others are with grandparents, not to mention step-parents or foster families for many. Assuming the heterosexual, nuclear family structure is a stagnant view for educators or those involved in education policy.


Conservatives: "GOVERNMENT IS WASTEFUL AND INEFFICIENT!"

Dept. of Ed: "We updated this form.  There are a lot of students from non-nuclear families, and it's wasteful and inefficient having to give each of them special instructions on how to properly fill out the parental information section."

Conservatives: "CHANGE IT BACK!  THIS IS OFFENSIVE!"
 
2013-05-11 12:00:29 PM
At least they are taking care of the important issues concerning education. No doubt the person at the Dept. of Ed responsible for this enlightened and forward thinking decision has once again earned his/her/its exorbitant salary and benefits package by taking this swift, decisive and brave action to improve education. I can just see the student test scores ticking upwards as we speak.
 
2013-05-11 12:01:41 PM
See, this is what I like about Fark, there's no discrimination, even bigots get to have greenlights.
 
2013-05-11 12:02:06 PM

ImpendingCynic: o5iiawah: congress makes laws and sets budgets. Regan had largely liberal congresses. Clinton had largely conservative congresses.
The only thing the president has control over in regards to a budget is putting his signature on it.

So why did fiscal conservatives biatch so much that Obama was going to destroy the economy? He should be irrelevant according to you.

And btw, Bush had a conservative Congress until 2007 but still racked up $4 trillion in debt in 6 years. So, are you going to admit you're wrong, or are you just going to throw Bush under the bus as a RINO?


I guess the economic boom of the 80s was because of Tip O'Neill, and not Reagan.
 
2013-05-11 12:11:39 PM

Vodka Zombie: I feel bad for you, Subby. The Washington Times is something normal people avoid. It's really only read by cult members.


Like my brother.   Family get-togethers can get interesting.
 
2013-05-11 12:12:01 PM

hasty ambush: At least they are taking care of the important issues concerning education. No doubt the person at the Dept. of Ed responsible for this enlightened and forward thinking decision has once again earned his/her/its exorbitant salary and benefits package by taking this swift, decisive and brave action to improve education. I can just see the student test scores ticking upwards as we speak.


So they aren't allowed to make a simple and effective fix to a form?
 
2013-05-11 12:12:38 PM
Well crap!

This will clearly destroy my traditional heterosexual loan applications!  I mean, how the hell am I supposed to know if I am parent 1 or parent 2!?  YOU ARE DESTROYING TRADITIONAL FORMS WITH THIS CHANGE!  I feel confused!

/ Moved to Sippi.  You KNOW I have to deal with poutrage daily.  
// You know the sort: small government and federal aid requests.  Religious freedom as long as it's Christian.  Anti-abortion and pro-capital-punishment.  They hate mainstream media and listen to Fox (who has pretty much the largest viewerbase... and so... cannot possibly get any more mainstream).
/// God I hate this state.  Hell, God hates this state.  It's why he sends a firey humid combo every summer... to encourage the wise to get the hell out.
 
2013-05-11 12:20:31 PM

AirForceVet: What about "Sugar Daddy?"

/We're important too!


DoE doesn't need to know about your stripper whore thong dollaz for education program.
 
2013-05-11 12:22:48 PM
Wait... What about people who have a third, fourth, or fifth parent? WHAT ABOUT THE POOR, OPPRESSED MORMONS?
 
2013-05-11 12:32:31 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: hasty ambush: At least they are taking care of the important issues concerning education. No doubt the person at the Dept. of Ed responsible for this enlightened and forward thinking decision has once again earned his/her/its exorbitant salary and benefits package by taking this swift, decisive and brave action to improve education. I can just see the student test scores ticking upwards as we speak.

So they aren't allowed to make a simple and effective fix to a form?


How is simple our effective?  How much for the new forms vs. simply keeping the old ones?  How do  "non-traditional" families now cope.  This is just meaningless  pandering that gets the squishy types feeling more squishy.  No doubt it will be described by some has brave and  and thoght deserving of a hero tag on Fark by some.
 
2013-05-11 12:34:26 PM

Abox: Should women even be signing forms?


Agreed. Although I do enjoy taunting you with the idea that I might take responsibility for my actions just this once.
 
2013-05-11 12:41:59 PM
I'm actually rather surprised that they still even have a paper FAFSA. It's so much less time consuming to just do it online, and you can link your IRS data directly from them so you don't even have to chase down last year's AGI and all of that other crap you'd need to fill out a paper form.

That and when you submit online, it's usually all processed within a day, and off to whatever schools you've entered. WHY would anybody do the dead tree version?
 
2013-05-11 12:55:44 PM
Parent #1_______________ Parent #2 _______________ Parent #3 _______________ Parent #4__________
 
2013-05-11 12:59:16 PM

pc_gator: Parent #1_______________ Parent #2 _______________ Parent #3 _______________ Parent #4__________



Parent(s)___________
 
2013-05-11 01:03:16 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

The government buys/prints forms in mass (even if the GPO does it, it costs money and gets charged by the GPO to the government agency getting the printing done). Wonder how many old forms are being trashed and what the cost of the new ones are? Yeah, stupid.



So, then, as long as they use up the old forms rather than destroy them, you're perfectly ok with them printing the new forms henceforth?  Your only concern is that the existing forms don't go to waste?
 
2013-05-11 01:06:34 PM
One of the El Paso news channels had this story on the other night:

http://www.kvia.com/news/el-paso-ranks-no-4-in-country-for-certain-m il fs/-/391068/20050856/-/kb17pnz/-/index.html

So then i had to explain to my visiting mother (and her friend too who came down from Denver) what a MILF was.  Thanks ABC!
 
2013-05-11 01:18:21 PM

hasty ambush: How is simple our effective?  How much for the new forms vs. simply keeping the old ones?  How do  "non-traditional" families now cope.


The identification of the parents/guardians in "non-traditional" families often falls through the cracks, because of the way the form is designed.  This allows, for example, an applicant to represent themselves as coming from a one-income household when in reality they come from a two-income household with a "non-traditional" family structure not represented on the form.

This is a simple and effective change to address that.  It does nothing to disenfranchise traditional families and recognizes non-traditional family structures where they need to be recognized.  Why are you so upset about this?
 
2013-05-11 01:44:47 PM
The form should be changed to read:

Number of Cocks: ________________

Number of Poons: ________________

Number of Aliens from Other Dimensions: ________________

Pretty much covers it, I would imagine.
 
2013-05-11 01:47:56 PM

leevis: thaylin: leevis: ALL GIRLS AGREE TO PULL PANTIES DOWN: LouDobbsAwaaaay: utah dude: no, you tell me... i'm the one asking for help, here.

Well, Bush started two wars, created an entirely new federal department that is 100% redundant, and simultaneously cut a huge tax break to the top 1%.  Which resulted in an explosion in the deficit.   Government spending grows more quickly under republican administrations than it does under democratic administrations.

So it seems to me that your one reason for being attracted to the republican party is completely untrue.  Thoughts?

Just in case pretty pictures are more effective:

[crookedtimber.org image 500x344]

Interesting picture. How about you post one that shows control of congress during those administrations

Why does that matter? The budget process is initiated by the President.

Initiated, yes. By the time it gets through congress it's not quite the same thing. Every member of congress has their own little pet project they want for their own state or district. How do you think the navy gets stuck with ships they don't want?


Then your argument still does not make sense. You would want to look at each starting budget and then the ending budget and see where they stood on each.
 
2013-05-11 02:14:56 PM

LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?


To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?
 
2013-05-11 02:27:42 PM

Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?



Merriam-webster.com

Definition of PARENT1a : one that begets or brings forth offspring b : a person who brings up and cares for anotherI am pretty sure that all your possibilities are still covered.
 
2013-05-11 02:28:03 PM

Benjimin_Dover: LasersHurt: Stupid, subby? Changing to generic labels on a form?

To be fair, they aren't really generic and replace one set of assumptions with a different set.  It assumes that both are parents of the kid.  What if one is a parent and the other is only a spouse of the other parent? What if they aren't parents at all but rather guardians?


Well, in that case you'd be splitting hairs.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report