|
On November 26 2011 06:23 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. The funny thing is if you care about education you should want to abolish the federal department of education. Only foolish liberals believe that throwing money endlessly at a failed venture will somehow make the results different. As it stands the more the feds have intervened the worse our educational system has become.
I have even less faith in the states to handle education, especially along the Bible belt. Private schools are also iffy. While there are some great ones, just like there are great public schools, many also suck, just like public schools.
|
On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas.
Yes it should be left up to the states and ironically because of the reasons you listed. You can make a difference in your own community and your own state and you can make sure you children are educated without interference from people in other states. When you make it into a federal issue you risk giving moronic people the power to dictate what your children will learn. Now because of people like you we have to waste time in federal elections arguing about religion and creationism vs evolution when it has no placed being discussed in federal politics.
Why does it bother you if people in Texas want to teach their kids about creationism when that is what the majority of people there believe? As long as my state is sensible that is all I worry about, my kids and yours will be better off. And realistically it really isn't going to hurt those kids to learn about creationism anyways.
And if you want to police how other people educate their kids, then how far should we go? We use the federal government to police our states, maybe we should use global government to police each nation? I wouldn't like that. Government should work in hierarchical layers with most of the work being done in the lowest possible layers. The only thing government should do at each level is the stuff that it MUST do. Education is not one of those things.
|
No child left behind is some of the worst bs ever passed. I favor getting rid of the department of education just for that reason. Also despite all the complaining about how terrible public education is my high school teachers were way better than my college ones.
|
The more i see of Ron Paul, the more amazed i am by this guy.
He seems to be about the only republican to cut the wars and save a crapton of money
|
If I were to ever vote Republican, it would be Ron Paul.
It blows my mind that people honestly think Bachmann is a remotely legitimate choice.
"If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005
"But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. ... I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, botching American history while speaking at an Iowan's for Tax Relief event in January 2011. The Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery, and John Quincy Adams was not one of the Founding Fathers.
"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009
I love Ron Paul though.
On November 26 2011 06:34 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. Why does it bother you if people in Texas want to teach their kids about creationism when that is what the majority of people there believe?
Because Creationism isn't Science. It's the very antithesis of Science. It should not be taught in a Science classroom. If they want to have their little Bible classes that's fine, but having Creationism taught in Science is just stupid.
|
On November 26 2011 07:20 Fruscainte wrote:If I were to ever vote Republican, it would be Ron Paul. It blows my mind that people honestly think Bachmann is a remotely legitimate choice. Show nested quote +"If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 Show nested quote +"But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. ... I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, botching American history while speaking at an Iowan's for Tax Relief event in January 2011. The Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery, and John Quincy Adams was not one of the Founding Fathers. Show nested quote + "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009 I love Ron Paul though. Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 06:34 macil222 wrote:On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. Why does it bother you if people in Texas want to teach their kids about creationism when that is what the majority of people there believe? Because Creationism isn't Science. It's the very antithesis of Science. It should not be taught in a Science classroom. If they want to have their little Bible classes that's fine, but having Creationism taught in Science is just stupid.
And why should it bother you what is taught in Texas (unless you are Texan). If the state of Illinois decided to introduce "understanding phlogiston" as its major chemistry curriculum, that is only a problem for people who live in Illinois.
|
On November 26 2011 09:10 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 07:20 Fruscainte wrote:If I were to ever vote Republican, it would be Ron Paul. It blows my mind that people honestly think Bachmann is a remotely legitimate choice. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 "But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. ... I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, botching American history while speaking at an Iowan's for Tax Relief event in January 2011. The Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery, and John Quincy Adams was not one of the Founding Fathers. "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009 I love Ron Paul though. On November 26 2011 06:34 macil222 wrote:On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. Why does it bother you if people in Texas want to teach their kids about creationism when that is what the majority of people there believe? Because Creationism isn't Science. It's the very antithesis of Science. It should not be taught in a Science classroom. If they want to have their little Bible classes that's fine, but having Creationism taught in Science is just stupid. And why should it bother you what is taught in Texas (unless you are Texan). If the state of Illinois decided to introduce "understanding phlogiston" as its major chemistry curriculum, that is only a problem for people who live in Illinois.
No, it's a problem for the entire country because Texas is part of the country, thus it provides workers, teachers, soldiers, etc. just like the rest of the U.S. does. You can't just say, "Oh, let one state create dumbasses."
|
On November 26 2011 09:15 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 09:10 Krikkitone wrote:On November 26 2011 07:20 Fruscainte wrote:If I were to ever vote Republican, it would be Ron Paul. It blows my mind that people honestly think Bachmann is a remotely legitimate choice. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 "But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. ... I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, botching American history while speaking at an Iowan's for Tax Relief event in January 2011. The Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery, and John Quincy Adams was not one of the Founding Fathers. "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009 I love Ron Paul though. On November 26 2011 06:34 macil222 wrote:On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. Why does it bother you if people in Texas want to teach their kids about creationism when that is what the majority of people there believe? Because Creationism isn't Science. It's the very antithesis of Science. It should not be taught in a Science classroom. If they want to have their little Bible classes that's fine, but having Creationism taught in Science is just stupid. And why should it bother you what is taught in Texas (unless you are Texan). If the state of Illinois decided to introduce "understanding phlogiston" as its major chemistry curriculum, that is only a problem for people who live in Illinois. No, it's a problem for the entire country because Texas is part of the country, thus it provides workers, teachers, soldiers, etc. just like the rest of the U.S. does. You can't just say, "Oh, let one state create dumbasses."
If Texas workers are dumb then business leaves Texas*. If Texas soldiers are dumb then the US Army doesn't take them. If Texas teachers are dumb, then they can't get jobs outide of Texas (and if Texas updates its dumb curriculum, then Texas teachers will have to go to flipping burgers, and it will import teachers from other states).
*Business leaving Texas means that Texas has a lot of unemployed people that then can move to another state, true, but those people can still potentially become worthwhile and educated (or at least make cheap janitors).
|
On November 26 2011 09:23 Krikkitone wrote:
If Texas workers are dumb then business leaves Texas*. If Texas soldiers are dumb then the US Army doesn't take them. If Texas teachers are dumb, then they can't get jobs outide of Texas (and if Texas updates its dumb curriculum, then Texas teachers will have to go to flipping burgers, and it will import teachers from other states).
*Business leaving Texas means that Texas has a lot of unemployed people that then can move to another state, true, but those people can still potentially become worthwhile and educated (or at least make cheap janitors).
Tragically, we don't live in a perfect world where a parent can just pick up their home and move to another state if the education system is failing their child - particularly if they are unemployed, like you said. Paying money to the government so that they can run a public science education class means I have the right to object to something that flies in the face of science in that class.
|
@Fruscainte "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009
Actually she got this right. Carbon dioxide is what plants breathe and global warming is a fake environmental movement designed to tax us.
The same people said it was global cooling 40 years ago, then they said it was warming and then when the climate has been the same as ever they said its climate change. Well how convenient, so every hot weather or cold weather or rain or hurricane can now be labeled man made climate change.
I'm all for environmental things like how about we talk about real environmental issues like chemical companies dumping thousands of liters of all sorts of wasteful and toxic pollutants into the ground and water or about the metal mines who dump the waste into villages and small towns backsides.
In fact today there is least amount of carbon dioxide in the air than it ever was. Even if you compare it to 70 years ago we have less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than 70 years ago.
I mean I actually am more scared about carbon dioxide deprivation which could cause global plants shortage and in turn less food, oxygen, etc...
Or even better yet lets talk about all the nuclear testing that went on in the cold war era and we are still suffering the consequences even today all over the world as radiation levels have been higher than normal.
|
On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas.
And what if creationism was more supported by the majority of states, would you still support federal education that would promote teaching creationism all over the country if you lived in one of the few states that didn't?
Be a little more objective. The fact that you don't believe in creationism in large part is the product of your society... If you lived somewhere else you may have believed in it, let the communities decide what they want for themselvse.
"If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005
and she's right...
Tragically, we don't live in a perfect world where a parent can just pick up their home and move to another state if the education system is failing their child - particularly if they are unemployed, like you said. Paying money to the government so that they can run a public science education class means I have the right to object to something that flies in the face of science in that class.
So you're going to object to something that flies in a science class that YOUR children aren't going to attend, just because you pay money to the federal government?
how's that any better? If anything, if there's a small minority of people in texas that don't want to be taught creationism it will create a niche environment for one or two schools that don't teach creationism in the state, and then the parents can consider sending their kids to those schools.
|
|
|
On November 26 2011 10:04 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. Show nested quote +"If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 and she's right...
I...w-what?
Do you honestly not see the issue of removing minimum wage, and letting corporations/business' pay people any small amount of money? Do you not see how that can turn bad (IE: China)?
And what if creationism was more supported by the majority of states, would you still support federal education that would promote teaching creationism all over the country if you lived in one of the few states that didn't?
Be a little more objective. The fact that you don't believe in creationism in large part is the product of your society... If you lived somewhere else you may have believed in it, let the communities decide what they want for themselvse.
No, YOU be a little more objective. Objective means listening to the FACTS.
It doesn't matter what people believe. It doesn't matter if people think it's a horrible thought if it was true. It isn't about deciding what they want to be taught. There is one truth, and one truth alone. So either all of established science up until this point is entirely wrong, or Creationism is right and we should teach that. Either one is true. It shouldn't be up for choice what is taught, ONE should be taught because ONLY ONE is true. You are, quite literally, saying that we should teach what makes us feel good as fact. That is the opposite of objectivity, reason, logic, and science.
I'm trying to keep as much respect and little hostility as possible, so please pardon if I'm coming off as unnecessarily abrasive.
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 26 2011 10:04 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. And what if creationism was more supported by the majority of states, would you still support federal education that would promote teaching creationism all over the country if you lived in one of the few states that didn't? Be a little more objective. The fact that you don't believe in creationism in large part is the product of your society... If you lived somewhere else you may have believed in it, let the communities decide what they want for themselvse. Show nested quote +"If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 and she's right... Show nested quote +Tragically, we don't live in a perfect world where a parent can just pick up their home and move to another state if the education system is failing their child - particularly if they are unemployed, like you said. Paying money to the government so that they can run a public science education class means I have the right to object to something that flies in the face of science in that class. So you're going to object to something that flies in a science class that YOUR children aren't going to attend, just because you pay money to the federal government? how's that any better? If anything, if there's a small minority of people in texas that don't want to be taught creationism it will create a niche environment for one or two schools that don't teach creationism in the state, and then the parents can consider sending their kids to those schools.
That's not being more objective, that's looking at a wrong point of view deliberately. We can objectively say that creationism is idiotic: it's irrational, illogical, and completely ridiculous. Cultural relativism is also moronic: we don't have to tolerate and accept other cultures or groups of people's differences just because they are different, we can look at what they do and clearly can say it's wrong or right based on logic.
No, I will not sit here and let part of this country ruin itself further, and drag the rest of the country down with it. They're entitled to believe what they want, but I will not tolerate them brainwashing their children and the children of others in public schools with idiocy and ruining any ability for critical thinking they have or will ever have. I will never tolerate that. It is not okay to allow other states to ruin themselves, everything that happens in one state effects the rest of the country. As for what I would do if the majority of the states in the country were for it? Well luckily for me, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It doesn't matter how many states want it.
I'm going to quote a man I have a lot of respect for, and this country is worse off for having lost him.
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others," "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."
You know who said those statements? Barry Goldwater, a man who once so epitomized the Republican party that he was known as Mr. Conservative.
Religion has one and only one place in this country: in private. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, you have that freedom. You do not have the freedom to try to push your beliefs on others, and we also have the right to freedom FROM religion.
And you're off your rocker if you think what happens in one part of the country has no impact on other parts of the country.
|
On November 26 2011 10:04 Kiarip wrote:
So you're going to object to something that flies in a science class that YOUR children aren't going to attend, just because you pay money to the federal government?
how's that any better? If anything, if there's a small minority of people in texas that don't want to be taught creationism it will create a niche environment for one or two schools that don't teach creationism in the state, and then the parents can consider sending their kids to those schools.
Am I going to object to the misuse of tax dollars? Sure, why wouldn't I? You're missing the point by bringing up hypothetical scenarios where certain specialized schools could spring up to teach science in science class. The point is that a state or federal institution is using tax money to support a religious agenda. Never mind that it's specifically being targeted at children, in an attempt to impress religious values before they have the benefit of a more mature judgement. Never mind, even, that what's being taught is complete garbage; that doesn't even have to come into the discussion to already make what they're doing wrong.
I could understand if you were apathetic about education in another country, or state, or anywhere that doesn't directly affect you. I don't even care that much myself. But to say that you shouldn't care about what essentially boils down to illegal activity makes it look like you are approaching this discussion from a very biased viewpoint.
|
On August 16 2011 22:48 Moop wrote:
What a weak line-up. don't worry, you've got this.
LOL. Why was he banned anyway?
OT, I think Barack wins it again.
|
On November 26 2011 09:10 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 07:20 Fruscainte wrote:If I were to ever vote Republican, it would be Ron Paul. It blows my mind that people honestly think Bachmann is a remotely legitimate choice. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 "But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. ... I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, botching American history while speaking at an Iowan's for Tax Relief event in January 2011. The Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery, and John Quincy Adams was not one of the Founding Fathers. "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009 I love Ron Paul though. On November 26 2011 06:34 macil222 wrote:On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. Why does it bother you if people in Texas want to teach their kids about creationism when that is what the majority of people there believe? Because Creationism isn't Science. It's the very antithesis of Science. It should not be taught in a Science classroom. If they want to have their little Bible classes that's fine, but having Creationism taught in Science is just stupid. And why should it bother you what is taught in Texas (unless you are Texan). If the state of Illinois decided to introduce "understanding phlogiston" as its major chemistry curriculum, that is only a problem for people who live in Illinois.
The problem is much bigger than that. First, we ought to care because damaging the education of Texas students hurts Americans in general. Every student who finishes high school without understanding basic biology (and yes, this means evolution) is one less student that can potentially discover the cure for cancer, a create new antibiotic, invent a groundbreaking surgical procedure, or come up with the next big idea in biology. The odds of any one student achieving this things is very low, but we're talking about millions of kids in Texas and beyond.
That's right, this is way bigger than just Texas. See, Texas is a massive state with an equally massive budet, and as such, has the prerogative to set whatever school standards it likes. Because Texas has such a large portion of the market share, textbook companies print versions of their books in order to comply with Texas standards. This means that smaller states (i.e. those who cannot afford to commission their own versions of textbooks) often change their standards (or leave them broad enough that it doesn't matter) so they can buy the Texas version of textbooks. In other words, the books created in order to match Texas's backwards beliefs about biology, history, and the social sciences end up being used in other states. The problem quite literally extends past Texas's borders. It's bad for everyone.
|
On November 26 2011 10:26 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 10:04 Kiarip wrote:On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 and she's right... I...w-what? Do you honestly not see the issue of removing minimum wage, and letting corporations/business' pay people any small amount of money? Do you not see how that can turn bad (IE: China)?
We're at 15% unemployment lol... Standard of living is low in china because they inflate their currency, but yeah I kinda wish that we could be as productive as china, meanwhile... we're still at 15% unemployment.
Show nested quote +And what if creationism was more supported by the majority of states, would you still support federal education that would promote teaching creationism all over the country if you lived in one of the few states that didn't?
Be a little more objective. The fact that you don't believe in creationism in large part is the product of your society... If you lived somewhere else you may have believed in it, let the communities decide what they want for themselvse. No, YOU be a little more objective. Objective means listening to the FACTS. It doesn't matter what people believe. It doesn't matter if people think it's a horrible thought if it was true. It isn't about deciding what they want to be taught. There is one truth, and one truth alone. So either all of established science up until this point is entirely wrong, or Creationism is right and we should teach that. Either one is true. It shouldn't be up for choice what is taught, ONE should be taught because ONLY ONE is true. You are, quite literally, saying that we should teach what makes us feel good as fact. That is the opposite of objectivity, reason, logic, and science. I'm trying to keep as much respect and little hostility as possible, so please pardon if I'm coming off as unnecessarily abrasive.
On the other hand people are paying taxes for public education (this is if public education is to exist,) if you pay taxes for the education you should have a say about what you're taught.
When the governmetn has the monopoly on schools the government can teach in schools whatever they want, if you have only private schools (privatize education,) then the parents can send their kids to the school they feel is best based on what/how it teaches.
I agree that creationism isn't Science by it's strict or even non-strict definition, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily SHOULDN'T be taughti n school. I'd never send my child to a school like that but that's why schools need to be private, if no one wants to send their kids to these types of schools they wouldn't exist, since there are people that do why are you for making it impossible for parents to send their kids to the type of school they feel is right for them. It's not like anyone has figured out a formula for success in life... There's no objectively right way of teaching kids. Private education allows parents to chose, public education doesn't.
|
On November 26 2011 10:42 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 10:26 Fruscainte wrote:On November 26 2011 10:04 Kiarip wrote:On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 and she's right... I...w-what? Do you honestly not see the issue of removing minimum wage, and letting corporations/business' pay people any small amount of money? Do you not see how that can turn bad (IE: China)? We're at 15% unemployment lol... Standard of living is low in china because they inflate their currency, but yeah I kinda wish that we could be as productive as china, meanwhile... we're still at 15% unemployment. Show nested quote +And what if creationism was more supported by the majority of states, would you still support federal education that would promote teaching creationism all over the country if you lived in one of the few states that didn't?
Be a little more objective. The fact that you don't believe in creationism in large part is the product of your society... If you lived somewhere else you may have believed in it, let the communities decide what they want for themselvse. No, YOU be a little more objective. Objective means listening to the FACTS. It doesn't matter what people believe. It doesn't matter if people think it's a horrible thought if it was true. It isn't about deciding what they want to be taught. There is one truth, and one truth alone. So either all of established science up until this point is entirely wrong, or Creationism is right and we should teach that. Either one is true. It shouldn't be up for choice what is taught, ONE should be taught because ONLY ONE is true. You are, quite literally, saying that we should teach what makes us feel good as fact. That is the opposite of objectivity, reason, logic, and science. I'm trying to keep as much respect and little hostility as possible, so please pardon if I'm coming off as unnecessarily abrasive. On the other hand people are paying taxes for public education (this is if public education is to exist,) if you pay taxes for the education you should have a say about what you're taught. When the governmetn has the monopoly on schools the government can teach in schools whatever they want, if you have only private schools (privatize education,) then the parents can send their kids to the school they feel is best based on what/how it teaches. I agree that creationism isn't Science by it's strict or even non-strict definition, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily SHOULDN'T be taughti n school. I'd never send my child to a school like that but that's why schools need to be private, if no one wants to send their kids to these types of schools they wouldn't exist, since there are people that do why are you for making it impossible for parents to send their kids to the type of school they feel is right for them. It's not like anyone has figured out a formula for success in life... There's no objectively right way of teaching kids. Private education allows parents to chose, public education doesn't.
You know, I'll let everyone else chew this post up into a million pieces.
It's just too easy.
I can't believe that someone honestly believes that removing minimum wage would be a reasonable fix to unemployment and that we should abolish public education. I'm just baffled.
|
On November 26 2011 10:44 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 10:42 Kiarip wrote:On November 26 2011 10:26 Fruscainte wrote:On November 26 2011 10:04 Kiarip wrote:On November 26 2011 05:40 Whitewing wrote:On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms. My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it). And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 and she's right... I...w-what? Do you honestly not see the issue of removing minimum wage, and letting corporations/business' pay people any small amount of money? Do you not see how that can turn bad (IE: China)? We're at 15% unemployment lol... Standard of living is low in china because they inflate their currency, but yeah I kinda wish that we could be as productive as china, meanwhile... we're still at 15% unemployment. And what if creationism was more supported by the majority of states, would you still support federal education that would promote teaching creationism all over the country if you lived in one of the few states that didn't?
Be a little more objective. The fact that you don't believe in creationism in large part is the product of your society... If you lived somewhere else you may have believed in it, let the communities decide what they want for themselvse. No, YOU be a little more objective. Objective means listening to the FACTS. It doesn't matter what people believe. It doesn't matter if people think it's a horrible thought if it was true. It isn't about deciding what they want to be taught. There is one truth, and one truth alone. So either all of established science up until this point is entirely wrong, or Creationism is right and we should teach that. Either one is true. It shouldn't be up for choice what is taught, ONE should be taught because ONLY ONE is true. You are, quite literally, saying that we should teach what makes us feel good as fact. That is the opposite of objectivity, reason, logic, and science. I'm trying to keep as much respect and little hostility as possible, so please pardon if I'm coming off as unnecessarily abrasive. On the other hand people are paying taxes for public education (this is if public education is to exist,) if you pay taxes for the education you should have a say about what you're taught. When the governmetn has the monopoly on schools the government can teach in schools whatever they want, if you have only private schools (privatize education,) then the parents can send their kids to the school they feel is best based on what/how it teaches. I agree that creationism isn't Science by it's strict or even non-strict definition, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily SHOULDN'T be taughti n school. I'd never send my child to a school like that but that's why schools need to be private, if no one wants to send their kids to these types of schools they wouldn't exist, since there are people that do why are you for making it impossible for parents to send their kids to the type of school they feel is right for them. It's not like anyone has figured out a formula for success in life... There's no objectively right way of teaching kids. Private education allows parents to chose, public education doesn't. You know, I'll let everyone else chew this post up into a million pieces. It's just too easy. I can't believe that someone honestly believes that removing minimum wage would be a reasonable fix to unemployment and that we should abolish public education. I'm just baffled.
you do realize that minimum wage destroys potential employment right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
