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?
There are times I wish I could just spam an image macro on this site. Right now is one of them. There is no way in words I can describe how much I am facepalming right now. I actually hurt my head, I slapped my forehead so hard when I read that.
Do I really have to explain how abolishing public education and minimum wage to fix unemployment is a horrendous idea?
There was a good discussion on Left, Right and Center and one of the topics was education. One of the points made was the way more funding (and better teachers) are given to wealthier districts in this country. It is one of the highlights of why our public schools are performing so poorly.
On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote: [quote]
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?
There are times I wish I could just spam an image macro on this site. Right now is one of them. There is no way in words I can describe how much I am facepalming right now. I actually hurt my head, I slapped my forehead so hard when I read that.
Do I really have to explain how abolishing public education and minimum wage to fix unemployment is a horrendous idea?
well they're completely separate issues, but I'd rather you didn't try to explain anything... lol. No time for socialist rhetoric and circular reasoning.
On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote: [quote]
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?
There are times I wish I could just spam an image macro on this site. Right now is one of them. There is no way in words I can describe how much I am facepalming right now. I actually hurt my head, I slapped my forehead so hard when I read that.
Do I really have to explain how abolishing public education and minimum wage to fix unemployment is a horrendous idea?
well they're completely separate issues, but I'd rather you didn't try to explain anything... lol. No time for socialist rhetoric and circular reasoning.
So public schools and minimum wage are now socialist?
Welp, I'm done. This is why I stay out of these types of threads. I'll be banned in no time if I stay in here just from the rage building up inside of me.
On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote: [quote] 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?
There are times I wish I could just spam an image macro on this site. Right now is one of them. There is no way in words I can describe how much I am facepalming right now. I actually hurt my head, I slapped my forehead so hard when I read that.
Do I really have to explain how abolishing public education and minimum wage to fix unemployment is a horrendous idea?
well they're completely separate issues, but I'd rather you didn't try to explain anything... lol. No time for socialist rhetoric and circular reasoning.
So public schools and minimum wage are now socialist?
Welp, I'm done. This is why I stay out of these types of threads. I'll be banned in no time if I stay in here just from the rage building up inside of me.
Was fun guys.
at their heart they are. Of course saying that they're socialist doesn't immediately discredit them unless socialism is discredited, which like I said I have no time to discuss.
On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote: [quote] 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?
There are times I wish I could just spam an image macro on this site. Right now is one of them. There is no way in words I can describe how much I am facepalming right now. I actually hurt my head, I slapped my forehead so hard when I read that.
Do I really have to explain how abolishing public education and minimum wage to fix unemployment is a horrendous idea?
well they're completely separate issues, but I'd rather you didn't try to explain anything... lol. No time for socialist rhetoric and circular reasoning.
So public schools and minimum wage are now socialist?
Welp, I'm done. This is why I stay out of these types of threads. I'll be banned in no time if I stay in here just from the rage building up inside of me.
Was fun guys.
LOL yea that tends to happen on public political forums...everyone has a political opinion.
From a non-bias standpoint my bet is on Romney to win the nomination lol
If you guys are so worried about your state laws. You can finally do something about it instead of sitting at home complaining about it. It's easier to change laws at state level than they are at federal level. Be pro-active instead of inactive in your government people. This is something I don't get why people complain about the states becoming totalitarian when in fact at the federal level it's even worse right now with the patriot act etc.
@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.
O dear. You should really educate yourself about global warming. In the 70s 3x as many studies predicted warming than cooling, now no peer reviewed studies are predicting cooling. Even the study by Richard Muller funded by the Koch brothers supports the idea of global warming. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the solutions for global warming should be but to claim that it is a fake environmental movement is just stupid.
On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote: [quote]
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?
There are times I wish I could just spam an image macro on this site. Right now is one of them. There is no way in words I can describe how much I am facepalming right now. I actually hurt my head, I slapped my forehead so hard when I read that.
Do I really have to explain how abolishing public education and minimum wage to fix unemployment is a horrendous idea?
Well removing minimum wage would remove unemployment. However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a horrendous idea. (ie debt slavery would also remove unemployment, but would probably be a bad idea.)
People arguing against minimum wage blows my mind. Sure we lose unemployment (except for the few people that are too lazy but w/e) and instead we gain a massive increase to the lower class because middle class paying jobs would be slashed to hell.
Basically, 15% of people (wait, really, unemployment is at 15%? fuck I need to be keeping up on this shit) get a little more money (the unemployed), and anywhere from 20%-80% get fucked.
Oh but those 5% at the top get even more, so I guess they might not want minimum wage.
On November 26 2011 15:14 1Eris1 wrote: People arguing against minimum wage blows my mind. Sure we lose unemployment (except for the few people that are too lazy but w/e) and instead we gain a massive increase to the lower class because middle class paying jobs would be slashed to hell.
Basically, 15% of people (wait, really, unemployment is at 15%? fuck I need to be keeping up on this shit) get a little more money (the unemployed), and anywhere from 20%-80% get fucked.
Oh but those 5% at the top get even more, so I guess they might not want minimum wage.
It's not 15%, whoever posted that earlier was severely misinformed. It's actually 9%.
On November 26 2011 15:14 1Eris1 wrote: People arguing against minimum wage blows my mind. Sure we lose unemployment (except for the few people that are too lazy but w/e) and instead we gain a massive increase to the lower class because middle class paying jobs would be slashed to hell.
Basically, 15% of people (wait, really, unemployment is at 15%? fuck I need to be keeping up on this shit) get a little more money (the unemployed), and anywhere from 20%-80% get fucked.
Oh but those 5% at the top get even more, so I guess they might not want minimum wage.
Lol, do you even know what you are talking about? Diagnosis of your statement: 1st sentence - You are appalled at the opposing idea. 2nd sentence - You side with the opposing idea only to buffer your far fetched idea 3rd sentence - You state a statistic and then use parenthesis to exaggerate the statistic as you attempt to hide the fact that the statistic was made up on the spot and not actually derived from anywhere. 4th sentence - You randomly point fingers at something that has nothing to do with your original presented idea. I wouldn't be surprised if you blamed it on global warming instead of the top 5%.
My interpretation: Your goal is to blame those 5% at the top. Your method is by gaining sympathy from anyone who falls between 20% and 80%, (a number made up at the moment) and your Execution is terrible. s('.^)d
btw: when minimum wage goes up, you lose jobs / increase unemployment. when minimum wage goes down jobs become more stable and last longer.
On November 26 2011 15:14 1Eris1 wrote: People arguing against minimum wage blows my mind. Sure we lose unemployment (except for the few people that are too lazy but w/e) and instead we gain a massive increase to the lower class because middle class paying jobs would be slashed to hell.
Basically, 15% of people (wait, really, unemployment is at 15%? fuck I need to be keeping up on this shit) get a little more money (the unemployed), and anywhere from 20%-80% get fucked.
Oh but those 5% at the top get even more, so I guess they might not want minimum wage.
Lol, do you even know what you are talking about? Diagnosis of your statement: 1st sentence - You are appalled at the opposing idea. 2nd sentence - You side with the opposing idea only to buffer your far fetched idea 3rd sentence - You state a statistic and then use parenthesis to exaggerate the statistic as you attempt to hide the fact that the statistic was made up on the spot and not actually derived from anywhere. 4th sentence - You randomly point fingers at something that has nothing to do with your original presented idea. I wouldn't be surprised if you blamed it on global warming instead of the top 5%.
My interpretation: Your goal is to blame those 5% at the top. Your method is by gaining sympathy from anyone who falls between 20% and 80%, (a number made up at the moment) and your Execution is terrible. s('.^)d
btw: when minimum wage goes up, you lose jobs / increase unemployment. when minimum wage goes down jobs become more stable and last longer.
I wasn't talking about changing minimum wage at all, I was talking about removing it completely. And my points were referenced to the guy that was saying we had 15% unemployment and that removing the minimum wage would be a good idea. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Of course it's fun to scroll through a 5 page arguement and pick out one post randomly and point out its lone-standing errors right?
On November 26 2011 15:14 1Eris1 wrote: People arguing against minimum wage blows my mind. Sure we lose unemployment (except for the few people that are too lazy but w/e) and instead we gain a massive increase to the lower class because middle class paying jobs would be slashed to hell.
Basically, 15% of people (wait, really, unemployment is at 15%? fuck I need to be keeping up on this shit) get a little more money (the unemployed), and anywhere from 20%-80% get fucked.
Oh but those 5% at the top get even more, so I guess they might not want minimum wage.
Lol, do you even know what you are talking about? Diagnosis of your statement: 1st sentence - You are appalled at the opposing idea. 2nd sentence - You side with the opposing idea only to buffer your far fetched idea 3rd sentence - You state a statistic and then use parenthesis to exaggerate the statistic as you attempt to hide the fact that the statistic was made up on the spot and not actually derived from anywhere. 4th sentence - You randomly point fingers at something that has nothing to do with your original presented idea. I wouldn't be surprised if you blamed it on global warming instead of the top 5%.
My interpretation: Your goal is to blame those 5% at the top. Your method is by gaining sympathy from anyone who falls between 20% and 80%, (a number made up at the moment) and your Execution is terrible. s('.^)d
btw: when minimum wage goes up, you lose jobs / increase unemployment. when minimum wage goes down jobs become more stable and last longer.
not like those jobs are way below the poverty line or anything, though. who cares if they're 'stable' or 'last longer' if they're not sufficient to sustain a decent lifestyle?
i'm honestly appalled that people in America think that the republican party should ever be elected. as someone who lives in Canada, i can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of the world (esp. Europe) looks at you with a sort of dumbfounded disbelief every time you guys have a serious bout of civil unrest over some hot button issue that, to the rest of the world, is something that we might have thought relevant forty or fifty years ago. i mean, we're talking about a country that had huge protests because someone wanted to build a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero. like seriously? that's what makes news in your country? that's what people are passionate about? really?
i'm not really going to check this thread very often, but i'm going to say a few things that the rest of the world (and basically everyone with a PhD in a relevant field) has accepted:
1) socialism is good, and you know it. 2) ayn rand was a horrible author and conservatism is actually weaker because of her 3) conservatism essentially boils down to preserving the status quo (or reaching back to a previous status quo) for its own sake, and this is totally unfounded 4) if you want to be in a country, then you need to stfu about extreme individual rights. it might be 'your right' to decide in a meticulous sense where each cent of your taxes go, but being that you are a citizen of a nation, you've got to understand that for logistical and practical reasons, you're going to be funding a road you might never drive on, or a school you might never attend, because these things are just good for the common good of your town/state/country. teaching evolution in schools is just a good thing to do. if you're teaching creationism to kids when it could be avoided, you're doing kids a disservice. the fact that you have to have a public education system (which, if properly optimized, is just better for everyone anyway) is a small price to pay for a guarantee (supposing you actually bother to make a good curriculum, which is something that the more 'socialist' states have done a much better job at) that every kid gets taught the correct stuff. and for those of you saying that it doesn't work: try looking outside America. you guys are doing it wrong. public school systems can work find and they do work fine in the vast majority of the developed world. simply because you have flaws in particular areas doesn't mean you need to abolish the entire system. 5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense. 6) just because something is constitutional doesn't make it good or correct. the founding fathers, while intelligent, were men of their own era, and they weren't infallible. if someone discovered that your constitution included a provision to only teach creationism, it would have to be amended, because that's simply a stupid provision. a good rule of thumb for these sorts of debates is to ask yourself, when you're considering objecting to something on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, "do i know a good reason as to why this should be unconstitutional? if the constitution were rewritten today, should we include the provision that makes this unconstitutional? why or why not?" 7) you guys aren't broke because of medicare, public education, pensions, or anything. you guys are broke because of essentially two things, only one of which is your fault:first, you're part of a capitalist system, which means you're necessarily going to have periods of recession and periods of prosperity. this is just the way capitalism works, and while someone might be to blame for it happening at this particular moment, pretending that you could fashion a system which NEVER recedes and yet is still capitalist is simply wrong on every level and contradicts basically every economic theory there is. second: you have a lack of national unity. you waste money on pointless things in order to appease (generally right wing, since they're the most vocal) interest groups. your military is a gigantic waste of money. the bush taxcuts were a gigantic waste of money. but understand simply because something costs a lot doesn't make it inherently bad. some indispensable stuff costs a lot of money, e.g. health care, education, the maintenance of a police force, etc. the problem with republicans is that they want unilateral cuts to spending across the board. ya, no. it's better to be in a state of debt with some sort of social security than to balance the books on the back of everyone's standard of living. it's not at ALL presumptive to suppose that i, or anyone else, should be entitled to enough to live off of, supposing i make the effort to work everyday. 8) hard work != wealth or success. this one is self-explanatory. poor people aren't poor cause they're lazy. they're poor because capitalism implies the existence of a lower class who are extorted by necessity into selling their labour for less than it takes to sustain them comfortably, only because the alternative is starving to death. the best argument against this is to suppose by thought experiment that every person worked extremely hard. would we have a world of billionaires? no, because that would completely annihilate the market.
basically, if you're a republican supporter, i strongly suggest you take some university level courses in economics or political science. it's not due to a conspiracy that professors are overwhelmingly left-wing. it's because the intelligentsia is always more left-wing than the commonfolk because the world is basically progressing more and more to the left with each decade. look back a hundred years. we're lightyears to the left. the republican party would have been left wing at that time. and you can bet that it'll be the same 50 years from now, because the status quo always has a net change when the left wing is in power and relative stagnation when the right is in power. over time, that results in a slow but steady shift to the left.
Don't like any republican candidates because none of them are actually interested in small government and reform. I'd appreciate a return to a more Washingtonian doctrine on foreign policy, greatly reduced size of the federal government, and a return to a time when the states handled more of their own shit.
On November 26 2011 15:14 1Eris1 wrote: People arguing against minimum wage blows my mind. Sure we lose unemployment (except for the few people that are too lazy but w/e) and instead we gain a massive increase to the lower class because middle class paying jobs would be slashed to hell.
Basically, 15% of people (wait, really, unemployment is at 15%? fuck I need to be keeping up on this shit) get a little more money (the unemployed), and anywhere from 20%-80% get fucked.
Oh but those 5% at the top get even more, so I guess they might not want minimum wage.
Lol, do you even know what you are talking about? Diagnosis of your statement: 1st sentence - You are appalled at the opposing idea. 2nd sentence - You side with the opposing idea only to buffer your far fetched idea 3rd sentence - You state a statistic and then use parenthesis to exaggerate the statistic as you attempt to hide the fact that the statistic was made up on the spot and not actually derived from anywhere. 4th sentence - You randomly point fingers at something that has nothing to do with your original presented idea. I wouldn't be surprised if you blamed it on global warming instead of the top 5%.
My interpretation: Your goal is to blame those 5% at the top. Your method is by gaining sympathy from anyone who falls between 20% and 80%, (a number made up at the moment) and your Execution is terrible. s('.^)d
btw: when minimum wage goes up, you lose jobs / increase unemployment. when minimum wage goes down jobs become more stable and last longer.
not like those jobs are way below the poverty line or anything, though. who cares if they're 'stable' or 'last longer' if they're not sufficient to sustain a decent lifestyle?
i'm honestly appalled that people in America think that the republican party should ever be elected. as someone who lives in Canada, i can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of the world (esp. Europe) looks at you with a sort of dumbfounded disbelief every time you guys have a serious bout of civil unrest over some hot button issue that, to the rest of the world, is something that we might have thought relevant forty or fifty years ago. i mean, we're talking about a country that had huge protests because someone wanted to build a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero. like seriously? that's what makes news in your country? that's what people are passionate about? really?
i'm not really going to check this thread very often, but i'm going to say a few things that the rest of the world (and basically everyone with a PhD in a relevant field) has accepted:
1) socialism is good, and you know it. 2) ayn rand was a horrible author and conservatism is actually weaker because of her 3) conservatism essentially boils down to preserving the status quo (or reaching back to a previous status quo) for its own sake, and this is totally unfounded 4) if you want to be in a country, then you need to stfu about extreme individual rights. it might be 'your right' to decide in a meticulous sense where each cent of your taxes go, but being that you are a citizen of a nation, you've got to understand that for logistical and practical reasons, you're going to be funding a road you might never drive on, or a school you might never attend, because these things are just good for the common good of your town/state/country. teaching evolution in schools is just a good thing to do. if you're teaching creationism to kids when it could be avoided, you're doing kids a disservice. the fact that you have to have a public education system (which, if properly optimized, is just better for everyone anyway) is a small price to pay for a guarantee (supposing you actually bother to make a good curriculum, which is something that the more 'socialist' states have done a much better job at) that every kid gets taught the correct stuff. and for those of you saying that it doesn't work: try looking outside America. you guys are doing it wrong. public school systems can work find and they do work fine in the vast majority of the developed world. simply because you have flaws in particular areas doesn't mean you need to abolish the entire system. 5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense. 6) just because something is constitutional doesn't make it good or correct. the founding fathers, while intelligent, were men of their own era, and they weren't infallible. if someone discovered that your constitution included a provision to only teach creationism, it would have to be amended, because that's simply a stupid provision. a good rule of thumb for these sorts of debates is to ask yourself, when you're considering objecting to something on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, "do i know a good reason as to why this should be unconstitutional? if the constitution were rewritten today, should we include the provision that makes this unconstitutional? why or why not?" 7) you guys aren't broke because of medicare, public education, pensions, or anything. you guys are broke because of essentially two things, only one of which is your fault:first, you're part of a capitalist system, which means you're necessarily going to have periods of recession and periods of prosperity. this is just the way capitalism works, and while someone might be to blame for it happening at this particular moment, pretending that you could fashion a system which NEVER recedes and yet is still capitalist is simply wrong on every level and contradicts basically every economic theory there is. second: you have a lack of national unity. you waste money on pointless things in order to appease (generally right wing, since they're the most vocal) interest groups. your military is a gigantic waste of money. the bush taxcuts were a gigantic waste of money. but understand simply because something costs a lot doesn't make it inherently bad. some indispensable stuff costs a lot of money, e.g. health care, education, the maintenance of a police force, etc. the problem with republicans is that they want unilateral cuts to spending across the board. ya, no. it's better to be in a state of debt with some sort of social security than to balance the books on the back of everyone's standard of living. it's not at ALL presumptive to suppose that i, or anyone else, should be entitled to enough to live off of, supposing i make the effort to work everyday. 8) hard work != wealth or success. this one is self-explanatory. poor people aren't poor cause they're lazy. they're poor because capitalism implies the existence of a lower class who are extorted by necessity into selling their labour for less than it takes to sustain them comfortably, only because the alternative is starving to death. the best argument against this is to suppose by thought experiment that every person worked extremely hard. would we have a world of billionaires? no, because that would completely annihilate the market.
basically, if you're a republican supporter, i strongly suggest you take some university level courses in economics or political science. it's not due to a conspiracy that professors are overwhelmingly left-wing. it's because the intelligentsia is always more left-wing than the commonfolk because the world is basically progressing more and more to the left with each decade. look back a hundred years. we're lightyears to the left. the republican party would have been left wing at that time. and you can bet that it'll be the same 50 years from now, because the status quo always has a net change when the left wing is in power and relative stagnation when the right is in power. over time, that results in a slow but steady shift to the left.
Hey, I read all of your post, and you bring up a lot of great points, but it was formatted terribly and was slightly painful to read. In the interest of making it easier for other people to read your (great) post, I've formatted it for you.
I'm not really going to check this thread very often, but i'm going to say a few things that the rest of the world (and basically everyone with a PhD in a relevant field) has accepted:
1) Socialism is good, and you know it.
2) Ayn Rand was a horrible author and conservatism is actually weaker because of her.
3) Conservatism essentially boils down to preserving the status quo (or reaching back to a previous status quo) for its own sake, and this is totally unfounded.
4) If you want to be in a country, then you need to stfu about extreme individual rights. It might be 'your right' to decide in a meticulous sense where each cent of your taxes go, but being that you are a citizen of a nation, you've got to understand that for logistical and practical reasons, you're going to be funding a road you might never drive on, or a school you might never attend, because these things are just good for the common good of your town/state/country.
Teaching evolution in schools is just a good thing to do. If you're teaching creationism to kids when it could be avoided, you're doing kids a disservice. The fact that you have to have a public education system (which, if properly optimized, is just better for everyone anyway) is a small price to pay for a guarantee (supposing you actually bother to make a good curriculum, which is something that the more 'socialist' states have done a much better job at) that every kid gets taught the correct stuff. For those of you saying that it doesn't work: try looking outside America. You guys are doing it wrong. Public school systems can work fine and they do work fine in the vast majority of the developed world. Simply because you have flaws in particular areas doesn't mean you need to abolish the entire system.
5) Gay marriage is a non-issue. You are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. Stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. Don't hide behind legalistic nonsense.
6) Just because something is constitutional doesn't make it good or correct. The founding fathers, while intelligent, were men of their own era, and they weren't infallible. If someone discovered that your constitution included a provision to only teach creationism, it would have to be amended, because that's simply a stupid provision. A good rule of thumb for these sorts of debates is to ask yourself, when you're considering objecting to something on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, "do i know a good reason as to why this should be unconstitutional? If the constitution were rewritten today, should we include the provision that makes this unconstitutional? Why or why not?"
7) You guys aren't broke because of medicare, public education, pensions, or anything. You guys are broke because of essentially two things, only one of which is your fault:
First, you're part of a capitalist system, which means you're necessarily going to have periods of recession and periods of prosperity. This is just the way capitalism works, and while someone might be to blame for it happening at this particular moment, pretending that you could fashion a system which NEVER recedes and yet is still capitalist is simply wrong on every level and contradicts basically every economic theory there is.
Second: you have a lack of national unity. You waste money on pointless things in order to appease (generally right wing, since they're the most vocal) interest groups. Your military is a gigantic waste of money. The bush taxcuts were a gigantic waste of money. But understand simply because something costs a lot doesn't make it inherently bad. Some indispensable stuff costs a lot of money, e.g. health care, education, the maintenance of a police force, etc. The problem with republicans is that they want unilateral cuts to spending across the board. It's better to be in a state of debt with some sort of social security than to balance the books on the back of everyone's standard of living. It's not at ALL presumptive to suppose that i, or anyone else, should be entitled to enough to live off of, supposing i make the effort to work everyday.
8) Hard work != wealth or success. This one is self-explanatory. Poor people aren't poor cause they're lazy. They're poor because capitalism implies the existence of a lower class who are extorted by necessity into selling their labour for less than it takes to sustain them comfortably, only because the alternative is starving to death. The best argument against this is to suppose by thought experiment that every person worked extremely hard. Would we have a world of billionaires? No, because that would completely annihilate the market.
Now, in response to your post, there are a few things in particular that I disagree with. Firstly, I disagree with your third idea that conservatism is only there to preserve the status quo. I consider myself an economic conservative (with both conservative and liberal social tendencies) and my belief is that the GOP and "Conservatives" in the last 20-30 years have been trying to destroy the status quo. If the status quo were being preserved, after all, the income inequality in the US would not be nearly as large as it is today.
Secondly, I agree in part about what you say about capitalism. Of course there are going to be "ups and downs". The problem with the current system in the US is that the "ups and downs" are far too extreme, and I attribute this to the fact that we don't have a REAL capitalist system, at all. It's "crony capitalism". The big (bad) businesses here fail, but are then bailed out by the gov't, and this just completely jacks the system for years to follow. If we were a real capitalist society (as in, good businesses are allowed to succeed, bad businesses are allowed to fail) our economic troubles would be significantly smaller than they are.
Regarding your point about constitutionality (and gay marriage): I think those who are using "constitutionality" as a guise to prevent gay marriage are stupid as hell. My interpretation of the constitution (accounting for recent amendments, etc.) is that gay marriage should be allowed on the sole basis of equality, if for no other reason. Pretending it says otherwise is just a perversion of the text.
I disagree with your belief, however, that states shouldn't have power. I believe the states should have a majority of the power in deciding what is best for their own state, and that there should be a FEW federally mandated laws that are just common sense. Things like, equality, no slavery, no murder, teaching of proper science, etc. Things that are objectively good, no matter what.
My primary reason for wanting states to have a lot of power to make their own laws is this: The US is geographically larger than all of Europe combined. We have more variation in climate than Europe. We also have more concentrated urban areas, and more rural areas. With this in mind, the cultural, social, and economic differences between any given part of the US are often substantially larger than any area within Europe. As such, you can't just apply "blanket law" at a federal level because it wouldn't always be the best for certain portions of the country. Similarly, you wouldn't be able to just apply a "blanket law" across all of Europe because of geographically, social, cultural, and economic differences.
EPT
