heh teenagers

[Starfury]

Interesting disscussion, but I want to pop back to the "Teens trying to deal with angst," for moment. (Not that I don't like the School system topic, but Anything I would say has been said.)

I was homeschooled, and though it can have its downsides (I.E. I din't get much social interaction with my peers) there is one thing that really helped me out. When I got "Angsty," I simply went and talked to mom. She would either talk me through it or let me know that I was being an ass for acting like a spoiled brat and trying to get my way. It worked. Granted, my first few years at College did wonders for my social skills, but the principles of how to handle Angst were already laid down by my mom (and dad also). Homeschooling (for me) promoted the kind of atmosphere at home that I could do that.

Anyway, thats my four Half-Pennies.

[Deflare]

Oops- I didn't realize that there was an entire page after the post that I replied to. Oops.

Tell me, Somber Cat,
Is it REALLY that you're happy that everyone gets educated? Or is it merely that you don't care if the education is substandard.... you are happy <i>so long as nobody gets a better education than anybody else?</i

Do you support more and more funding because you think pouring cash into the problem will solve it, <I>or because you get to stick it to "all the rich bastards" by plundering them for largesse?</i>>

Aye, wonderful- jam all sorts of words into her mouth. Asshole Debate Tactic #1: Can't refute a person's real arguments? Make some up for them and refute those. Having actually read Somber's posts, I fail to see where she mentioned gouging the upper classes. Perhaps you are responding to you idea of a "pinko-communist God-scorning liberal's" arguments would be, instead.

sharity is so wonderfully easy for the leftist, because they're always using someone else's income... they don't have to care how much it costs, or how poor the quality is. They get to feel self-righteousness and schadenfreude at the same time. And if the charity produces an across-the-board failure? Why, even better.

Oh, aye, truly liberals support failures while conservatives support successes. That's why the Clinton administration wracked up record deficits! Wait...

That's why the Great Depression started under a Democrat and ended under a Republican! Erm...

That's why, when disaster struck various parts of the US in 1906, 1927, 2001, and most recently along the Gulf of Mexico, the Democratic presidents of the times caused the abyssmally slow governemnt response! Hold on...

For a leftist would rather be "equal" in squalor than "unequal" in prosperity... and be forced to admit that those who strive hardest are the ones who succeed most.

Ah, yes, the Harrison Bergeron argument. Obviously, if people aren't forcing Spanish-speaking students to perform equally at English tests to native English speakers, they must be forcing everyone to be as stupid as possible! That's why the best-educated and most intelligent members of society tend to go Republican! Wait, that's not right...

Our nation's public students rank FIFTEENTH IN THE WORLD. We're behind nations that eat DOGS, for Christ's sake. They're coming out of the 12th grade of government schooling emotionally stunted, sociopolitically brainwashed, and educationally unfit for college-level courses.

15 out of 180+? Not bad, actually- that would be the 92nd percentile. Thanks for that quick shot of racism and biggotry, by the way- obviously, if people eat things that we don't, they must be inherently inferior! By, the way, guess who has been in control of legislation for the past 25 or more years? Conservatives. Logically, then, wouldn't the blame for crappy schools these days be laid on them? If other countries are doing better than we are, shouldn't we be emulating them then? Unless you mean the insanely strict measures in Japan, which- as mentioned elsewhere on this thread- is hardly conducive to the mental well-being of students.

<I>Homeschooled kids, however, are surpassing them at all these points.</> These government school kids are routinely SPANKED by homeschooled kids in every aptitude test.... <I>including social development and emotional health evaluations by psychologists.</i>

I find this to be rather suspicious; a source, please? Preferably not one that stands to gain financially from increased attendance at private schools. Besides, psychology tests could easily be influenced by outside factors (people expect wealthy kids to be more stable than poor kids, so everything is subconsciously leaned that way), and aptitude tests are, as described in this thread, poor measurements of actual ability. I'm good at those tests, yet I have almost no marketable talents- pretty good indication that they aren't a good test for practical knowledge.

The government education experiment is a dismal and unredeemable failure, by design. There are only two things that government is good for, and that's fighting wars and shooting crooks. Anything else is a job someone in the private sector could do better. Asking government to do anything else is merely handing vast power to something incompetent to handle it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. A system in which the government merely fights and arrests is called feudalism. The role of government has evolved to the point where it's expected to care for those that can't care for themselves. Without a government that does more than fight (which is a recipe for a dictatorship, by the way), the poor are screwed. No crap about "it's their own fault"- there will alway have to be someone on the bottom. There will always be the people that can't or won't struggle their way to to the top- this should not have to be a death sentence. Food, water, shelter, and medical care- these are absolutely basic rights that all people have. Trust me, charities simply aren't going to be enough to pay for all this.

By the way, you like smooth roads? Cheap hospitals? A well-armed police force? The knowledge that no matter how luck or poor decisions strike you, the government will help you in some way? Guess how all that is paid for? Taxes. Americans have an annoying aversion to taxes that the rest of the world simply doesn't have. For one thing, the taxes I'm proposing would be laid on the rich rather than the poor- that is, the burden would move from the people that can't afford it to the people who can. A tax cut was recently issued to gas companies, who are recording 600% profits, but no similar tax cut has been aimed at the lower classes. And Republicans claim to represent the people.

You know the funny thing about those murders, robberies, and drug deals that occur out in the open in public schools these days? They don't happen- at least, not at my school. I've had a few things stolen, but I've never been mugged, and even the best-off steal things. My area is hardly the richest, and it does indeed have a large number of immigrants. Admittedly, we're not talking about the abject poverty found in cities- my school is in a fairly minor backwater. The fact that my school really isn't bad, either discipline-wise and educationally (it scores well, offers a variety of electives and advanced courses, and has many vocational classes), indicates that public schools aren't automatically pits of evil and stupid students and teachers.

Now, there's a difference between my area and the inner city. What is it? Worse economic conditions in the city and a lack of public order. Make sure that people are well fed and have a place to go in the city, and there will be much less tension, fear, desperation, and competition to spark tempers and drive people to do anything for money. Bring in an uncorrupt police force with lots of people, lots of resources, and plenty of rewards for courageous service, and you have people to tame crime- both the obvious, in the form of gang actions, and the less obvious but still influential- child-beating and the like. Both of these actions will cost money; guess where the government gets the money from? That's right- the taxes you hate so much.

Teachers... Teachers vary. I tend to spend a lot of time just sitting in the office- it's the only place to get out of the rain when I get to school, and I'm too lazy to move after classrooms are opened. There, I hear some of the teachers talking about their jobs. Let me put it this way- I don't care how it affects the time it takes me to graduate from high school, but I will drop any class I have with one of those teachers; she is simply abrasive and very obviously didn't like her students. I've already had one teacher like that, in 5th grade- incidentally, that was probably the worst school year in my life. However, at the same time, I've had teachers that genuinely like their subjects and their students, and you can tell- those are the classes you look forward to and understand easily. I have the good fortune to have had several teachers like that in my school. Thus, it varies- not all public school teachers are bad teachers that stick around for tenure and for the humongous (read: far below American average) income.

Starfury: I've had similar lessons- the thing is, the ones that crushed the angst thing in the bud were teachers and classmates at my public school. Would you be somehow incapable of speaking to your mother if you weren't homeschooled? I rather doubt it.

[Somber Cat]

Tell me, Somber Cat,
Is it REALLY that you're happy that everyone gets educated? Or is it merely that you don't care if the education is substandard.... you are happy <i>so long as nobody gets a better education than anybody else?</i>

Nobody getting a better education than anybody else is what we have now. Thanks to NCLB, the school study is not focused upon actually learning anything, but in the ability to score well on tests. The most ironic thing about NCLB is that under it no child can get ahead. Even AP classes are forced to the rigors of standardized testing. So yes, it is that I want every one educated, and I also want that education to be the most effective and efficient possible.

Do you support more and more funding because you think pouring cash into the problem will solve it, <I>or because you get to stick it to "all the rich bastards" by plundering them for largesse?</i>

Funding is not the answer, although it IS part of it. The answer is a change in our educational policy, our national understanding and expectations of education, and removing the political urge to tinker with education every four years. Increased teacher pay needs to be made available to draw in qualified people into the field. Likewise, schools need to change policies of tenure to allow them to fire inefficent, corrupt, and abusive teachers.


Charity is so wonderfully easy for the leftist, because they're always using someone else's income... they don't have to care how much it costs, or how poor the quality is. They get to feel self-righteousness and schadenfreude at the same time. And if the charity produces an across-the-board failure? Why, even better.

Who's talking charity? I'm talking taxes, and I'm specifically talking taxes of that top 1% with 90% of the nations wealth. If you aren't making at least a million dollars a year, I'm not talking about you. And note the efficient part of the above equation. I want the federal government to tax what it needs plus 10%, and to keep the expendatures it needs as low as possible. I don't support the scrapping of social services to do it. Better, smarter, cheeper.

For a leftist would rather be "equal" in squalor than "unequal" in prosperity... and be forced to admit that those who strive hardest are the ones who succeed most.

Correction. I would rather we be equal in secure prosperity rather than unequal with the majority of the population in squalor. I don't care how much the haves have so long as there are no have nots. And no, I don't believe that welfare is the answer. Giving a check for nothing in a capitalist society is like giving crack to an addict. Instead I want the poor to be pathologically analyzed on a person to person basis and find ways of transfering them from unemployable to employable to employed.

Our nation's public students rank FIFTEENTH IN THE WORLD. We're behind nations that eat DOGS, for Christ's sake. They're coming out of the 12th grade of government schooling emotionally stunted, sociopolitically brainwashed, and educationally unfit for college-level courses.

So? Is your ego so overconsuming that you can't be content in being the best that you can be as circumstances allow you to be? I don't care if we're first, fifteenth, or fiftieth so long as we are the best that we can be. That we work to overcome the flaws in our system and try to be the best that we can be. Education isn't football. By the by, do you know who IS number one? I couldn't find it. What I did find were listings saying America was #8, #11, and #16, so this whole 'best education' seems pretty filmsy an argument.

<I>Homeschooled kids, however, are surpassing them at all these points.</> These government school kids are routinely SPANKED by homeschooled kids in every aptitude test.... <I>including social development and emotional health evaluations by psychologists.</i>


Allow me to repeat myself... which I hate doing. I APPROVE OF HOMESCHOOLING! I do want a few controls in place so that the parent is really teaching their kids something equivalent to what is being taught in public and private schools, but if a parent has the ability, drive, and interest in teaching their own kids then I approve and moreover say give them a tax credit for doing so, just as many parents who send their kids to private and religious schools recieve. In fact I believe that one of homeschooling's advantages is that there is an optimum teacher to student ratio in homeschooling 1:1, as opposed to the 1:25 or 1:30 or 1:35 that exists in public schools. Homeschooling is a variant on the tutor system, where instead of hiring an expert the parent does it themselves.

The problem with Homeschooling isn't homeschooling but the expection that every child CAN be homeschooled. Not all households have the ability to do so. You need some educational background to do it. You need a parent willing to not work and to teach the kids. In most families BOTH parents work due to rising costs of living. Do you think that one of them should end their carreer for five to ten years... and that's in the case of 1 child... and lose their quality of life or worse, their sustainability?

The government education experiment is a dismal and unredeemable failure, by design. There are only two things that government is good for, and that's fighting wars and shooting crooks. Anything else is a job someone in the private sector could do better. Asking government to do anything else is merely handing vast power to something incompetent to handle it.

Public education is not an experiment, nor is it unredeemable, nor is it a failure. It is public education, the idea that all children within this nation should recieve education regardless of race, creed, gender, sexuality, or even citizenship. All children are educated at least somewhat. Secondly, next time you drive on a freeway, thank national government. Next time a hurricane hits you, thank national government. Next time you cross a state line without being searched and taxed, thank national government. You want to be a superpower? You have a strong federal government. You want a nation that can do something that affects the world? You need a strong federal government.

One last point. The difference between government and private business is the bottom line. The bottom line number one priority in business is money. EVERYTHING else is secondary. CEO's can be replaced, workers can be fired, locations shifted but the number one determiner of what is done and how is money. The bottom line of government is people. People who are ruled. People who are taxed. People who are spared rule. People's opinion and belief made into policy. People spared from others opinion and belief. The bottom line of government is people.

And because I know you'll say it, no. It's not power. Power is in both business and government. Power is the ability to affect the bottom line. Business power affects markets. Government power affects people. Too much power in the hands of either is a bad thing. It creates monoplies and tyrranies.

"And neither is a good thing."

Somber

[StrangeWulf13]

The more you talk, the less you seem to have to say. If "brevity is the soul of wit", you might be at your wit's end. =P

Government should stay out of the free market, and the free market should stay out of government. Otherwise, the market is no longer free.

[SolidusRaccoon]

Secondly, next time you drive on a freeway, thank national government. Next time a hurricane hits you, thank national government. Next time you cross a state line without being searched and taxed, thank national government. You want to be a superpower? You have a strong federal government. You want a nation that can do something that affects the world? You need a strong federal government.

I will thank my STATE and LOCAL government for the roads, and my STATE and LOCAL government for dealing with disasters. And I will thank the Bill of Rights for my freedoms.

Where are the secret hidden pages of the Constitution that I keep missing, where it declares that federal government has the duty to educate children? How about letting the parents take that reasonability, you know if federal schools were abolished it would not be the end of education. There would be private schools out there that would serve the lower classes. It would not only be the well off that get an education. School would realize there is a market for the lower classes, and yes it would be far better than what we have now. Or better yet, teach the children yourself.

[Deflare]

I will thank my STATE and LOCAL government for the roads,

The Interstate is just that- a roadway that crosses state borders, and therefore is paid for by the federal government.

and my STATE and LOCAL government for dealing with disasters. And I will thank the Bill of Rights for my freedoms.

Some disasters, such as the Mississippi floods and the recent hurricanes, require much greater resources than each state can bring to bear (especially with lower taxes, notably). And the Bill of Freedoms is at the national level, although most or all states have equivalents.

Where are the secret hidden pages of the Constitution that I keep missing, where it declares that federal government has the duty to educate children?

It's not in the Constitution. However, rights aren't established by a peace of paper, but by merit of birth. Everyone has a right to an fairly equal chance to succeed or fail, and that includes public education. If you must have a Constitutional link (which isn't necessary; not every element of law need be included there), then try the 9th Amendment: People have rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

How about letting the parents take that reasonability, you know if federal schools were abolished it would not be the end of education. There would be private schools out there that would serve the lower classes. It would not only be the well off that get an education. School would realize there is a market for the lower classes, and yes it would be far better than what we have now. Or better yet, teach the children yourself.

Private schools for the poor? You have to pay for a private school. Many families can barely afford food- can they afford to send their children to school if it isn't provided for free? Even if they can, that further tighens the budget, lessening the chance that the family can drag its way out of poverty. There goes any chance for social mobility and equality- you know, the founding principles of democracy?

You know, I can't think of a much worse way to do things than "teach them yourself." Even the best parents aren't omniscient- there will be elements of education that they will miss or won't be skilled at, whereas teachers specialize in the subject they teach. Teaching to the craft, again, promotes the freezing of social movement, which is bad. At worst, you have the opportunity for all sorts of demented indoctrination. Science is already met with enough scorn in America- it will only get worse when people unfamiliar with the scientific method start trying the teach things. If you want to complain about the US falling behind technologically, then go ahead- start widespread homeschooling. And then, of course, there are white supremicists and their ilk- with no mediation in the form of public contact with the hated groups, these madmen's ideas could spread like wildfire. The same argument can be brought to bear against private schools.

[SolidusRaccoon]

Public schools are not free, they are paid through taxes. No public schools means no taxes, hence people would havre that money to spend on education. And there would be private school that would aim at that market. Bare bones education, whcih would be words above what we have now.

[Deflare]

Public schools are not free, they are paid through taxes. No public schools means no taxes, hence people would havre that money to spend on education. And there would be private school that would aim at that market. Bare bones education, whcih would be words above what we have now.

Taxes pay for things other than schools, so you would still need taxes. Taxes are also scaled according to ability to pay, whereas a private schools charge a flat fee. In your ideal scenario, the poor pay must pay a given price, or don't have their children educated. In my ideal scenario, the poor pay a miniscule amount in taxes, have the remainder for food and such, and their children can go to school for free.

I would call what we have now to be above 'bare-bones' education. Millions have gone go through the current public school system over the last 50-60 years, and the vast majority tend to do well enough. Certainly, things can be improved through the emulation of other national school systems (of which, AFAIK, only Japan has anything resembling what you're proposing- see the high suicide rates there), but the current system seems to at least serve the 'bare-bones' education you so loudly call for.

[Shyal_malkes]

I still think that having public schools is an ok (if not perfect (not by an astronomically long shot)) idea and it does allow those who don't otherwize have means of educating their own children to do so. it also allows for unity. my mom likes the show and story "christy" which a girl goes to this then backwoods and feud riddled place called cutter gap. the feud fought against the school, not because it was substandard, but because it was teaching everyone regardless of which side of the feud they were on.

[Somber Cat]

Secondly, next time you drive on a freeway, thank national government. Next time a hurricane hits you, thank national government. Next time you cross a state line without being searched and taxed, thank national government. You want to be a superpower? You have a strong federal government. You want a nation that can do something that affects the world? You need a strong federal government.

I will thank my STATE and LOCAL government for the roads, and my STATE and LOCAL government for dealing with disasters. And I will thank the Bill of Rights for my freedoms.

Where are the secret hidden pages of the Constitution that I keep missing, where it declares that federal government has the duty to educate children? How about letting the parents take that reasonability, you know if federal schools were abolished it would not be the end of education. There would be private schools out there that would serve the lower classes. It would not only be the well off that get an education. School would realize there is a market for the lower classes, and yes it would be far better than what we have now. Or better yet, teach the children yourself.

Once more I am repeating myself. There is no place in the consitution nor in any amendments requiring the federal government to provide for education anywhere. There are many STATE consitutions that do have articles in their constitution requiring the state provide unrestricted access to education for children.

What does get the federal government involved in education is three things: one) the federal government can get into anything it wants to whether it's legal or not. Two) Federal law providing funding to schools. Three) the standing that federal law superceeds state law.

I've already listed what has happened historically when there was no public school. I see no evidence that removal of public schooling will not return us to those conditions in which the rich have the most access to education while the poor have the least. By the by, education is the single greatest means by which an individual is socially uplifted regardless of ethnisity, religion, sex, gender, or sexuality.

Incidently, one major triumph in states rights is Utah's refusal to accept federal money for their state education program. By not accepting the money, in 2006 their schools will be exempt from NCLB. The federal government can do nothing, as Utah doesn't HAVE to accept the money. Vermont and Connetticut are also exploring similar options. As I understand it, Utahians are rather proud they can pony up the money to pay for their own schools without needed federal assistance. I'm eager to see the result.

"When every one is rich why have programs for the poor? There is a very very good answer to this and I doubt that few of you will ever understand it."

Somber

[Narnian]

Sigh...

Why do people keep saying the Constitution gives rights to people - it doesn't! The people already have the rights. (remember the D of C, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...").

The purpose of the Constitution was to make it clear the purpose of the federal government was to secure those rights and the limitations of the government to infringe on those rights.

The oft ignored 10th ammendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.", clearly shows if it isn't mentioned as a federal responsibility (such as education) it is a state (or personal) responsibility.

[Deflare]

Sigh...

Why do people keep saying the Constitution gives rights to people - it doesn't! The people already have the rights. (remember the D of C, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...").

As I said, aye. This ideal is the basis of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Enlightenment in general.

By the way, I think you mean the D of I, not the D of C.

The purpose of the Constitution was to make it clear the purpose of the federal government was to secure those rights and the limitations of the government to infringe on those rights.

The oft ignored 10th ammendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.", clearly shows if it isn't mentioned as a federal responsibility (such as education) it is a state (or personal) responsibility.

Well, education also isn't listed in the acts that the federal government is expressly prohibited from performing.

Section VIII, Article 18 also says that "It [Congress] may make laws necessary for carrying out the enumerated powers." A good public education system would, in my opinion, aid in the enumerated powers, such as laying and collecting taxes, establishing a postal service, issuing patents and copyrights, and so on- people need to be educated to serve in clerical positions, and people need to be educated to fulfill the web of infrastructure necessary to support the clerics; in addition, levying taxes becomes much more useful when there's more money floating around to be taxed- increased prosperity is the result of widespread education.

As Somber mentioned, the federal funds aren't required, and the Constitution doesn't bar optional federal gifts to the states.

Finally, one must wonder about the continuing applicability of the 10th Amendment. In the modern world of wide-spread infrastructure, high technology, and societal complexity, the federal government has been intrusted with so many powers that to enumerate them all would transform the Constitution into a thick book, rather than the concise document that it currently is. Most judges of the Supreme Court, including the more conservative judges, ignore the 10th Amendment or apply Section VIII, Article 18 very liberally; I would say that they're generally right to do so.

[StrangeWulf13]

The oft ignored 10th ammendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.", clearly shows if it isn't mentioned as a federal responsibility (such as education) it is a state (or personal) responsibility.

Well, education also isn't listed in the acts that the federal government is expressly prohibited from performing.

No no no no NO! Is this what public schooling taught you? Agreeing with someone before turning their argument on its head?

Dude, you just don't get it, do you? If a power or responsibility is not given to the Federal government by the Constitution, it immediately must go to the States and/or the people by default!

"Well, it's not prohibited from taking it up, so..."

No. It's not prohibited, but we've already covered this. If it's not explicitly given to the Federal government, it then belongs to the States. No "if's", "and's" or "but's" about it.

Public schooling is not explicitly given to the Federal government. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the States, or with the people.

There, that's as clear as I can state it. If you cannot, or will not, accept or understand what I just said...


...then I doubt your precious little public schooling did anything except teach you to follow the party line.

Play devil's advocate all you want; you'll just end up looking as big of a dork as he is.

[SirBob]

<I>Homeschooled kids, however, are surpassing them at all these points.</> These government school kids are routinely SPANKED by homeschooled kids in every aptitude test.... <I>including social development and emotional health evaluations by psychologists.</i>

It's a fair point. However, there's a small inherent bias in those figures: as homes schooling has historically been rendered "optional" by the existance of public schooling, parents who choose to home-school their children tend to be those who possess the aptitudes necessary to do so effectively. If home schooling were the only convenient means of child education, you'd have to contend with the fact that not all parents are cut out to be educators. Something like one in three adults in America have trouble with simple addition and subtraction - you want them to teach their kids basic math skills? Many more adults haven't read anything heavier than "TV Guide" in decades - you think they'll be able to see to their kids' basic literacy?

Sure, public education sucks. But "home school your kids!" isn't a solution - it's an objective we're a long, long way from being able to implement.

(The home schooling question also runs afoul of the issue of whether parents have the right to raise their kids to be illiterate social retards who count on their fingers, should they choose to slack off on home education, and to what extent - if any - the government should be permitted to interfere when parents choose to do, as a certain minority inevitably will. Is failure to provide a good education a form of child neglect?)

[Deflare]

The oft ignored 10th ammendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.", clearly shows if it isn't mentioned as a federal responsibility (such as education) it is a state (or personal) responsibility.

Well, education also isn't listed in the acts that the federal government is expressly prohibited from performing.

No no no no NO! Is this what public schooling taught you? Agreeing with someone before turning their argument on its head?

I used what I consider to be a fair and courteous debating tactic- I highlighted the points of your argument that I agreed with, then went on to argue against what I disagreed with. My apologies if you were confused.

Dude, you just don't get it, do you? If a power or responsibility is not given to the Federal government by the Constitution, it immediately must go to the States and/or the people by default!

I made 4 points. You singled out 1 and have been hammering against it, ignoring the others. Aye, truly I'm the ignoramus in this discussion.

The primary piont- which, because it was in a long paragraph, apparently flew over your head- was that there's another part of the Constitution saying that Congress can pass laws that aid it in the enumerated points. I described numerous ways in which a widely educated populace would help Congress carry out its enumerated tasks. I did make a mistake, though- the pertinent passage is Article I, Section VIII, Paragraph 18. It's straight from my history book, by the way.

I also pointed out why the 10th Amendment is often ignored, and should often be ignored. It's poorly worded, directly clashes with the Elastic Clause (the name given to the enumerated power that I noted), and isnt' very applicable to modern conditions; again, all the powers that are and need to be entrusted to the federal government are too numerous to explicitly state in the Consitution- the 10th Amendment needs to be reworded as such. As that's unlikely to happen anytime soon, the prudent action is for the judges (who are the ones that rule on this stuff) to interpret it as leniently as possible.

There, that's as clear as I can state it. If you cannot, or will not, accept or understand what I just said...

Oh, I understood it. I just didn't accept or agree with it. There is indeed a difference.

...then I doubt your precious little public schooling did anything except teach you to follow the party line.

Whose party line? I've been politically conscious for about 3 years; Bush has been in power for 5, and Republicans have heald a majority in the House of Representatives since 1994 (can't find the figures on the Senate). Logically, then, the party line that I would be indoctrinated towards would be that of the Republican party. You can see how successful that was.

I don't tow the party line. There are several issues upon which I am much more liberal than the Democrats and Libertarians. I like to think that I came to conclusions on individual issues myself, after thinking about them and judging the merits of each side based on my own pre-existing beliefs and assumptions about what is right and good. I just happen to be leftist in most regards. So please, no mudslinging about being an automaton, alright?

Play devil's advocate all you want; you'll just end up looking as big of a dork as he is.

I dunno, the devil must be damned influential, to turn so many people to the sin of not believing in a given perception of who and what God is, and what he/she/it/they want. In addition, I never did figure out what Christians have against him. You advocate harsh treatment of prisoners, don't you? Why, then, villify the being that supposedly carries out divinely-ordained punishments?

[Tbolt]

I dunno, the devil must be damned influential, to turn so many people to the sin of not believing in a given perception of who and what God is, and what he/she/it/they want.

Satan hates God and everything that God stands for, he isn't called prince of this world for nothing. As to his direct influence on world events? I

[SolidusRaccoon]

Well let me tell you a little secret, you see Satan really isn't a nice guy. You know, pure evil and all that stuff.

[Madmoonie]

Jesus said that a house warring against itself cannot stand. Satan hates us, since we are GOD's creation. And that is putting it mildly. But of course Satan looks "alright." He is a lier. He decieves with pretty baulbes (sin), taunts his with lies and deceit. He does this to blind us to the truth. Satan's hatred of GOD is great he wants to destroy and torment on this plain and the next. Satan decieves, seduces and then destroyes, murders. GOD is greater than everything and that provides a way for justice and salvation, and Satan will always, ALWAYS lose.

On a totally differant subject....am I the only one who thinks that homeschooling and public schooling are both good things? That both have weak points as well? That both have very benefitial outcomes? I, for instance, am a product of public schooling. I do not regret my time there, but there were times when I seriously hated being there. There were also times I loved it there as well. And I have seen both negative and positive examples of home schooling. As for federal and local governments, they should have a balance. E plurbius unim. Out of many, one. Cooperation between both leads to betterment of both, but there are also things that both parties need to keep seperate of. That probably did not help much..... How about.....ummm....I like the Cowboys?

[Deflare]

Oops. Right, then, no tongue-in-cheek comments on theology, since I'm obviously over my head there. I will note, however, that everyone ignored the rest of my post.

On a totally differant subject....am I the only one who thinks that homeschooling and public schooling are both good things? That both have weak points as well? That both have very benefitial outcomes? I, for instance, am a product of public schooling. I do not regret my time there, but there were times when I seriously hated being there. There were also times I loved it there as well. And I have seen both negative and positive examples of home schooling. As for federal and local governments, they should have a balance. E plurbius unim. Out of many, one. Cooperation between both leads to betterment of both, but there are also things that both parties need to keep seperate of.

Hmm... This sounds about right.

Public school is geared toward the least intelligent students, and therefore causes the brightest students to get bored and cynical; however, having an environment dedicated to education, in my experience, improves the quality of education; in addition, by the time you get to high school, you can be assured that at least some of the teachers will be well-trained in their respective fields.

Home schooled children are a ripe picking ground for indoctrination by stupid parents, and can therefore be breeding grounds of ignorance and future KKK members. On the other hand, home schooling helps cement the bond between parent and child, and the curriculum can be focused specifically on the child.

This would indicate that the best solution is the keep public education available, but optional. Which is, you know, how it currently is.

That probably did not help much..... How about.....ummm....I like the Cowboys?

Cowboys? Meh. Nothing wrong with being a ranch hand, but 'cowboys' have been over-glorified and become a symbol of America's knee-jerk reaction against legal authorities. I mean, we're talking about fancy vigilantes here.

...Oh, you meant the football team, didn't you? Never mind.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Oops. Right, then, no tongue-in-cheek comments on theology, since I'm obviously over my head there. I will note, however, that everyone ignored the rest of my post.

There's a contingent here, including RH himself, who are a bit ... traditional in their religious beliefs. Safest to stay away from the subject; it tends to generate large amounts of heat, some smoke, and no light at all.

Cowboys? Meh. Nothing wrong with being a ranch hand, but 'cowboys' have been over-glorified and become a symbol of America's knee-jerk reaction against legal authorities. I mean, we're talking about fancy vigilantes here.

8) You make that sound like a bad thing....