On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
well I did say it would be a higher proportion, obviously far from everyone as we can see here.
On September 23 2011 13:19 darthfoley wrote: Huntsman is actually sane
Unfortunately he's the only one, and Republicans don't want a candidate who is competent and intelligent.
With the possible exception of Bachmann, Huntsman is the dumbest one up there. Did you even listen to his answers? They were some of the most inane, generic, and hollow debate responses that I've ever heard.
I think Huntsman always starts his answers very broad and generic (talking about a "human problem" etc.) but he then narrows his answer to focus on the question. I agree that it's definitely an odd way of answering questions; he treats every one like a mini speech. I don't think he's saying nothing, though. I feel I know where he stands on all the issues he addresses, and he's not afraid to actually make the debate about the differences between candidates.
Gingrich, on the other hand, treats it like a rally. Half his answers are about beating Obama and how the Republicans will accomplish that. That's great, sir, but first you have to get the nomination from the party, and to do that you have to distinguish yourself from the people on stage. Please focus on that more.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Where in the constitution does it say we can't have religion in schools? If you think it's the first amendment, you don't understand it.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Well considering that there was a Republican at the debates that booed a soldier for being gay (you should watch the Youtube video), the assumption that Republicans are gay bashers gets verified. No candidate called out the booer.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Well considering that there was a Republican at the debates that booed a soldier for being gay (you should watch the Youtube video), the assumption that Republicans are gay bashers gets verified. No candidate called out the booer.
So because they spent their 30 seconds answering the question, and not defaming one morons intolerance, they're all gay bashers?
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Well considering that there was a Republican at the debates that booed a soldier for being gay (you should watch the Youtube video), the assumption that Republicans are gay bashers gets verified. No candidate called out the booer.
Ok. Please point out how that verifies the statements previously made by the other poster.
One jackass at a Republican debate boo's when someone says something they disagree with = all Republicans are gay-bashers. Thanks for clearing that up.I'm glad you've got such a firm grip on the world of politics so you can keep the rest of us informed.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Well considering that there was a Republican at the debates that booed a soldier for being gay (you should watch the Youtube video), the assumption that Republicans are gay bashers gets verified. No candidate called out the booer.
So because they spent their 30 seconds answering the question, and not defaming one morons intolerance, they're all gay bashers?
Voted for Paul he is slowly sneaking to the top of the polls everywhere and he is the right choice. He is the only one up there sept maybe Cain who will do the radical work that this country needs to survive. I really hope alot of Republicans and people wake up and smell the freedom he can be our man we just have to get behind him Romney and Perry arn't the only choices there a couple of Rhinos with a pretty face. I think America has been through enough and is ready for the President she needs.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Do you have sources for ANY of these claims? I would honestly love to see them because I haven't heard of Ron Paul's push to add religion into schools. The only thing close to this I have seen/read anywhere pretty much says he just wants it left up to State/Local government (basically saying that the Federal Govt and Dept of Education can't effectively regulate the entire country, as students in rural California have very different needs compared to those in urban Michigan; and who better to get those students what they need in terms of education than the Governments closest/most familiar with them).
I know 95% of TL folks hate all things Republican and swiftly assume they are all gun-toting, gay-bashing, bible-thumping, super-rich rednecks, but please use facts and cite sources. This topic is suppose to have INFORMED discussion about the candidates, not "Old white dudes be crazy, trolololo".
Firstly, let me just say that there are some things that I agree with Ron Paul on, about half of what he says I agree with. But in my opinion, half isn't good enough for a candidate that I want to elect to office.
Among other things, here are some of the other views he has that I strongly disagree with that aren't related to education. Note that I'm fairly moderate in general, I don't lean much in either direction.
"Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008) Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008) Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008) Economic crisis demonstrates that Fed must come to an end. (Sep 2009) (This is ridiculously stupid) Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008) Fed has ominous power with no oversight & no control. (Sep 2010) (This is patently untrue, although I can see why he'd think this if he wasn't truly informed on how it works) Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010) Let churches marry couples, without government document. (Jun 2011) Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007) Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009) (I'm hugely in favor of this and he voted No). Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) (Yeah, he's consistent on this) Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009) Replace "hate crime" with equal penalties for equal assaults. (Apr 2011) Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011) Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009) Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006) Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009) Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) Recycling consumes more energy than it saves. (Apr 2011) (Herp Derp, recycling isn't about conserving energy you dumbass >_<) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008) Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)
I'll stop for now or this will just go on and on. This is not even half way down the page.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Where in the constitution does it say we can't have religion in schools? If you think it's the first amendment, you don't understand it.
It's a violation of the Establishment clause. McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71
Also Engel vs. Vitale established that any prayer in school of any kind, even nondenominational, is also unconstitutional.
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement” - Senator Michele Bachmann.
On September 23 2011 15:13 Mitt Romney wrote: Just a selection of views from this 'intellectual powerhouse' you admire so much:
Newt's half right. I'm not aware of a "violent" wing of the GLBT movement, but there are parts of it that I would consider "extreme" or "militant," specifically those groups and individuals that are pushing for "acceptance" of GLBT's rather than just "tolerance."
EDIT: The same thing holds for the "secular fascism." There are "Bill Maher" atheists who won't rest until religion is stamped out entirely and go out of their way to demean it, and then there are "Penn Jillette" atheists who are tolerant of religion.
Newt's half right. I'm not aware of a "violent" wing of the GLBT movement, but there are parts of it that I would consider "extreme" or "militant," specifically those groups and individuals that are pushing for "acceptance" of GLBT's rather than just "tolerance."
EDIT: The same thing holds for the "secular fascism." There are "Bill Maher" atheists who won't rest until religion is stamped out entirely and go out of their way to demean it, and then there are "Penn Jillette" atheists who are tolerant of religion.
But secularism =/= atheism.
Wanting equal rights for everyone, regardless of religion... or just the government to not cater to a specific religion... or just plain secularism... is not the same as folding to the will of the atheists, and far too many people (especially politicians) make it a point to think that if it's un-Christian (and especially promoted by an atheist group) than it's a point for atheism, rather than a point for religious freedom or secularism.
Just a point to keep in mind I hear that sooo many times in these debates and speeches.
On September 24 2011 01:27 xDaunt wrote: Newt's half right. I'm not aware of a "violent" wing of the GLBT movement, but there are parts of it that I would consider "extreme" or "militant," specifically those groups and individuals that are pushing for "acceptance" of GLBT's rather than just "tolerance."
Huh? How is it "extreme" or "militant" to want acceptance of GLBT people? What an absurd statement.
On September 24 2011 01:27 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: The same thing holds for the "secular fascism." There are "Bill Maher" atheists who won't rest until religion is stamped out entirely and go out of their way to demean it, and then there are "Penn Jillette" atheists who are tolerant of religion.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Where in the constitution does it say we can't have religion in schools? If you think it's the first amendment, you don't understand it.
It's a violation of the Establishment clause. McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71
Also Engel vs. Vitale established that any prayer in school of any kind, even nondenominational, is also unconstitutional.
Thanks for the sources, I think from a constitutional perspective these rulings are downright silly. They undermine the constitutions protection from government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Obviously my opinion, but specific to McCollum vs. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black said, "For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere." This is not at all what the constitution says. The constitution protects the freedom to worship wherever, whereas this ruling abolishes worship within the education setting.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Where in the constitution does it say we can't have religion in schools? If you think it's the first amendment, you don't understand it.
It's a violation of the Establishment clause. McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71
Also Engel vs. Vitale established that any prayer in school of any kind, even nondenominational, is also unconstitutional.
And to reply to you response about him earlier... you're more of a left-wing nut than he's a right wing nut if you think that inflation needs to be increased, and stimuli weren't "big enough"
inflation is huge, and stimuli destroy the economy. This is the exact reason that Ron Paul has a better chance with the democrats a lot of whom are upset with Obama than he does with some of the neo-conservative republicans. He is an honest man of character who supports personal liberty and understands economics...
Thanks for the sources, I think from a constitutional perspective these rulings are downright silly. They undermine the constitutions protection from government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Obviously my opinion, but specific to McCollum vs. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black said, "For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere." This is not at all what the constitution says. The constitution protects the freedom to worship wherever, whereas this ruling abolishes worship within the education setting.
A bit of a stretch, imo.
yeah, this too, but from what I understand prayer and stuff is only not allowed to be school policy, students can pray whenever they want to so their rights to worship aren't infringed upon.
Of course this also only goes for public schools, I think that under certain terms prayer can be mandatory in private schools, although I'm not sure.
On September 24 2011 01:41 dOofuS wrote: The constitution protects the freedom to worship wherever, whereas this ruling abolishes worship within the education setting.
Nope. Students still have a number of protected freedoms of worship in school. The only thing it abolished was the right of school officials to impose religion on students.
A Summary of Permissible Activities that may be Performed by Students in our Public Schools.
* Students may bring Bibles or other religious scriptures to school and read them on campus. * Students may pray together during school hours, so long as it does not interrupt learning times. * Students may say grace at lunchtime, silently or aloud, alone or with other students. * Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and ad hoc gatherings. These student-led faith groups must be given the same access to school facilities as non-religious groups. * School officials may not compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. * Students are allowed to pray silently during any school-initiated "minute of silence." * When student speakers are selected (using neutral criteria) and retain control of the content of the message, they may engage in religious speech or pray in student assemblies or graduation ceremonies.
On September 23 2011 13:01 Kiarip wrote: The primary is way harder for Ron Paul than the general election would be. In the general election he can appeal to a higher proportion of reasonable/open-minded people willing to listen.
Ron Paul is anything but reasonable. The man is a nut as well, his nuttiness just doesn't get as much attention so a lot of people don't know about it, because the man doesn't get any attention.
I can't see anyone open-minded or reasonable electing someone who genuinely wants to eliminate all public education.
Is this really true? Ron Paul wants to privatize education? Citation please?
And who else wants to get rid of public education? Just wondering... as an educator, this greatly concerns me.
Thanks
Ah, I see, I misspoke. He said that he wants all public education gone in 1988, he has since changed his stance to merely eliminating the Department of Education, and all federal funding of public schools, from kindergarten to universities.
He wants the federal government to have no role in education at all, and wants the states to do it. On the other hand, in his opinion, it should be up to the state to decide whether they want religion in their schools or not, nevermind the fact that its unconstitutional.
He wants no government funding on the federal or state level for the arts at all.
He wants to encourage homeschooling and private schooling, he will leave public schools intact but wants them to get less funding and encourage people to avoid them.
He wants to teach creationism in schools, as an alternative "theory" ( use the word theory here in quotation marks because none of these morons know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis).
He wants christian schools to get tax breaks, and tax credits for christian educational programs.
He wants a constitutional amendment to support school prayer.
Where in the constitution does it say we can't have religion in schools? If you think it's the first amendment, you don't understand it.
It's a violation of the Establishment clause. McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71
Also Engel vs. Vitale established that any prayer in school of any kind, even nondenominational, is also unconstitutional.
Thanks for the sources, I think from a constitutional perspective these rulings are downright silly. They undermine the constitutions protection from government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Obviously my opinion, but specific to McCollum vs. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black said, "For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere." This is not at all what the constitution says. The constitution protects the freedom to worship wherever, whereas this ruling abolishes worship within the education setting.
A bit of a stretch, imo.
Well, to be clear, you don't have all your Constitutional rights in a school. It's different in a school than outside in public.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr2d4hF9qd1qikvi0.png)
![[image loading]](http://religionnerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/militant-atheist1.jpg)
