Go Ron ...

VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
The Department of Education was created during the Carter Administration. Since then, our scholastic standing as compared to the rest of the world has not improved and in many studies, actually declined. Has it really helped improve education? Before the Dept. of Education, protocol was left up the the state. I grew up and went to school under a state run system and I feel, at 48, that I received a far better education than what our children have while under the Dept. of Education umbrella. It's another federal money pit.
 
CanadianCoyote

CanadianCoyote

Well-Known Member
I consider myself VERY lucky I recieved most of my education in Canada. I moved here during my second semester of 9th grade. It's not that I'm being snobby ... it's just that I was appauled that sophomore composition class had NO IDEA how to compose a proper letter, or even that there are different types of letters, and that there are proper ways to FOLD different types of letters. I did that in third grade!!! I was on the highscool newspaper my senior year as the copy editor, I had to teach the class valedictorian how to use the internet. Struck me as odd, seeing as she got a full scholarship to Michigan State University.
 
VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
The other major problem I have with him is that he does not adhere to the libertarian belief that the government should not interfere with citizens' rights to abortions or sexual preference.
Click to expand...
He believes that they should be left up to the States. Tell me Ceestyle...Do you think it was a good thing that the government raided and took children from their parents at the Polygamist compound in Texas? You imply, IMO, that government should not interfere w/ sexual preference. How about polygamy? How about grown men having sex w/ 15-16 year old girls? Every culture draws lines in what is acceptable, does it not?
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Well-Known Member
It is a common misunderstanding of non-Libertarians that all Libs want to dismantle government completely. We are not anarchists. Not all of us are so extreme or naive as to believe that everything should be privatized. First and foremost, we value the Constitution. We value individual rights over the rights of the state, essentially the state should have no rights.

Believe it or not, public works (trash pick-up, police, education, charity) can fit within the Libertarian paradigm. The rub is that it expects the decisions to be made on a more local level, thus giving individuals more control over what happens in their "neighborhood".

And speaking of trash pick-up specifically, personally, I would like it if there were more competition. We still have to pay for our garbage service, and in some counties are REQUIRED to pay for it no matter WHAT, even if there's no trash to pick up. How is it good for me and my community that we are forced to do business with one company that the county has given the franchise to, and who can decide what they want to charge with absolutely zero competition???
How is it good for me that I can't make a contract with another company downcountry who charges LESS THAN HALF what the local upcountry disposal company charges?
It's not good for me, it's good for them and it's good for the county. The same county who wastes our taxpayer dollars renting buildings to house departments that were housed just fine in buildings they already owned but weren't quite so pretty and new.

FUCK, this shit is getting me fucking PISSED OFF. :evil:
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
The Department of Education needs to be abolished. As Dave said, it was formed under the Carter Administration. What wasn't said is that, that formation was a political plum for all the contributions from the teacher's unions to the Democrat Party.

Vi
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
VTXDave said:
The Department of Education was created during the Carter Administration. Since then, our scholastic standing as compared to the rest of the world has not improved and in many studies, actually declined. Has it really helped improve education? Before the Dept. of Education, protocol was left up the the state. I grew up and went to school under a state run system and I feel, at 48, that I received a far better education than what our children have while under the Dept. of Education umbrella. It's another federal money pit.
Click to expand...
Just because a system is not working does not mean that you should set it adrift. I believe that - given the absolute importance of setting high education standards for the future of our nation - there should be federally administered standards at the very least. There is no principle that says that state-run education would be any cheaper at all. In addition, the creation of 50 systems and 50 standards makes standardization and protocol a ridiculous proposition. I mean, shouldn't it be a priority of our NATION to have smart citizens?

The post by Seamaiden further confirms the goal I originally proposed: if he is a true Libertarian, he doesn't want education in the hands of the states either! He wants it in the hands of the citizens! Do you really think that will lead to a smarter country? Yeah, right. Seriously... if you want to compare our nation to others, saying that our primary system is bad (which it is), the main difference between us and them is not a delocalized approach to education. Quite the opposite, in fact. The biggest difference is the priority in FUNDING. The Department of Education has continually been cut under Reagan and GW, with more on the way. You can't do shit without money, and when you have the right continually pulling money out of the public sector, of course they're going to jump in and say it doesn't work when the tank runs dry. Do you have ANY IDEA what teachers get paid here compared to other countries? Jack shit, just jack shit.

The latest attempts to privatize education through the voucher system have just been the latest rework of dismantling the system through privatization, a recurring theme of the republican party. Yes, I believe in competition, but i also believe that some things should remain in the public sector. Any time you have a program whose specific goal is to help citizens - health care and education being good examples - if you put a corporation in charge of it, you will inherently compromise the primary goal with that of profit. Look at our prison system! It is a perfect example of what happens when the customer (the government) is interested in the bottom line, and the consumer has little/no choice in the product they are delivered or a feedback mechanism that affects the private industries' bottom lines.

VTXDave said:
He believes that they should be left up to the States. Tell me Ceestyle...Do you think it was a good thing that the government raided and took children from their parents at the Polygamist compound in Texas? You imply, IMO, that government should not interfere w/ sexual preference. How about polygamy? How about grown men having sex w/ 15-16 year old girls? Every culture draws lines in what is acceptable, does it not?
Click to expand...
Of course I think that was what should have happened. My point is only that you can't advocate complete personal liberty and not be for gay rights and reproductive rights. That's buffet-style libertarianism, to use a common christian metaphor.

Seamaiden said:
It is a common misunderstanding of non-Libertarians that all Libs want to dismantle government completely. We are not anarchists. Not all of us are so extreme or naive as to believe that everything should be privatized. First and foremost, we value the Constitution. We value individual rights over the rights of the state, essentially the state should have no rights.

Believe it or not, public works (trash pick-up, police, education, charity) can fit within the Libertarian paradigm. The rub is that it expects the decisions to be made on a more local level, thus giving individuals more control over what happens in their "neighborhood".

And speaking of trash pick-up specifically, personally, I would like it if there were more competition. We still have to pay for our garbage service, and in some counties are REQUIRED to pay for it no matter WHAT, even if there's no trash to pick up. How is it good for me and my community that we are forced to do business with one company that the county has given the franchise to, and who can decide what they want to charge with absolutely zero competition???
How is it good for me that I can't make a contract with another company downcountry who charges LESS THAN HALF what the local upcountry disposal company charges?
It's not good for me, it's good for them and it's good for the county. The same county who wastes our taxpayer dollars renting buildings to house departments that were housed just fine in buildings they already owned but weren't quite so pretty and new.

FUCK, this shit is getting me fucking PISSED OFF. :evil:
Click to expand...
Well, obviously your trash system is retarded. I think that this attitude is that centrally organized = bureaucracy and inefficiency. No-bid contracts or lack of choice are not inherent in a large system. In that case, central oversight could mean as little as a common set of standards to adhere to. Or it could mean a system that's in the public sector, but with accountability to the end user: you. Think about this scenario: you garbage is on an open-bid contract system. You've got company A who underbids every other service - probably only one or two others - significantly. So much so that they cannot properly administer your trash service, and they spill shit all over the place, miss pickups, etc. You complain and you complain, but your locality loves the deal they're getting, have a five-year contract, and will do anything to continue saving that money. It's another example of the same deal: the end user of the product is not responsible for the choice of service.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Why don't we just abolish government? Seems like that is what you Libs want. Oh that's right, you need someone to protect you from the boogeyman, to pave your streets, to take care of your wastes, to put out fires, deliver mail, It's just all those other pesky things government does like educate our children, feed the poor, Medicare, SS, and just about any other social program that exists that you abhor. Yeah protect me but don't use my money to help all those lazy bastards that can't seem to make it on their own. I get it, Me me me me!
 
CanadianCoyote

CanadianCoyote

Well-Known Member
The government helps people? A close friend of mine DIED waiting to get on social security disability ... he died of what he said he had, and what the government said he should be able to deal with on his own.

Feed the poor? Then why are foodbanks having to turn people away because they can't keep up with the demand?

Libs are the opposite of conservatives. Liberal means "a lot", meaning they want MORE government involvement, they also want to get rid of programs that don't work and refine programs that aren't working properly.

... where the fuck did you come from, anyway? And why are you attacking people? Did your mommy not read you bedtime stories and now you're bitter about it? I mean, whiskey tango foxtrot ...

medicineman said:
Why don't we just abolish government? Seems like that is what you Libs want. Oh that's right, you need someone to protect you from the boogeyman, to pave your streets, to take care of your wastes, to put out fires, deliver mail, It's just all those other pesky things government does like educate our children, feed the poor, Medicare, SS, and just about any other social program that exists that you abhor. Yeah protect me but don't use my money to help all those lazy bastards that can't seem to make it on their own. I get it, Me me me me!
Click to expand...
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
CanadianCoyote said:
The government helps people? A close friend of mine DIED waiting to get on social security disability ... he died of what he said he had, and what the government said he should be able to deal with on his own.

Feed the poor? Then why are foodbanks having to turn people away because they can't keep up with the demand?

Libs are the opposite of conservatives. Liberal means "a lot", meaning they want MORE government involvement, they also want to get rid of programs that don't work and refine programs that aren't working properly.

... where the fuck did you come from, anyway? And why are you attacking people? Did your mommy not read you bedtime stories and now you're bitter about it? I mean, whiskey tango foxtrot ...
Click to expand...
Geeze a new guy with an attitude. Go get a fucking job so you can mellow out. I've been here quite a while, so maybe I should ask you where the fuck did you come from? If you are refering to my LIBS moniker in a couple a threads back, I was referring to libertarians, geeze you are a wise one aint ya? Hey I'll take you on as well as all these nazis on this site, name your poison. I usually try and get along............. well maybe not but I am a friendly guy..............well maybe not, but I have great tolerance for stupid assholes..............well maybe not, but I promise I'll try and do better......................well maybe not!
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
CanadianCoyote said:
Libs are the opposite of conservatives. Liberal means "a lot", meaning they want MORE government involvement, they also want to get rid of programs that don't work and refine programs that aren't working properly.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Libertarians' platform is to eliminate all taxpayer-subsidized forms of assistance, such as welfare, public housing, etc.

I believe a country exists for the welfare of its citizens. Love thy brother, all that shit.
 
joemomma

joemomma

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
- as the tragedies of VT, NIU, and other prove - is that when it is easy for people to get guns legally, bad shit can and will happen. While obviously the long-term solution is teaching people how to properly deal with their anger, there will always be those that reach for a gun .. and if it's there, the innocent have their problems to deal with.
Click to expand...
To me these tragedies only serve to prove that good people should be able to own guns. If there was a straight a student with a glock they could have taken out the bastard before they killed so many.

What would really suck is if some psycho with his illegally gotten firearm came after me and my family and I had no way to defend myself because guns are bad and illegal.

Gun prohibition will ONLY keep guns away from law abiding citizens. Violent criminals don't give a rats ass about gun laws and probably favor those laws cause then it means when they brake into someones house to steal their shit or rape them or whatever, there is a greater chance of the criminal surviving and profiting from his crime.

No matter what kind of laws are passed you cannot stop people from becoming killers anyhow, if they can't get a gun they'll get something else that is just as deadly.

Gun laws would only make things safer for criminals.
 
VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
joemomma said:
To me these tragedies only serve to prove that good people should be able to own guns. If there was a straight a student with a glock they could have taken out the bastard before they killed so many.

What would really suck is if some psycho with his illegally gotten firearm came after me and my family and I had no way to defend myself because guns are bad and illegal.

Gun prohibition will ONLY keep guns away from law abiding citizens. Violent criminals don't give a rats ass about gun laws and probably favor those laws cause then it means when they brake into someones house to steal their shit or rape them or whatever, there is a greater chance of the criminal surviving and profiting from his crime.

No matter what kind of laws are passed you cannot stop people from becoming killers anyhow, if they can't get a gun they'll get something else that is just as deadly.

Gun laws would only make things safer for criminals.
Click to expand...
You've got to be kidding me.

Look at the majority of Europe and Asia and tell me that's the case. People in Japan sure stab each other when they're pissed, but the fact that guns just aren't available is obviously a major factor is their complete absence of gun violence. What's 'just as deadly' ? A knife? What is going to allow someone to take out tens of people in a short period of time, that you can buy at walmart?

I don't want people with guns in the classroom. That is ludicrous. Not to mention you get some jackass with a gun in a situation like that who thinks they can be the hero, and they end up making the situation more dangerous. I can't believe you think that's a good idea.

If you want to keep guns out of criminals' hands, you have to start somewhere. Saying that you can't is just defeatist and stupid. I'm scared about how easy it is for bad drivers to get behind the wheel of a weapon that can go 100 and weighs a few tons. Trusting any citizen in good standing with a gun? I'm outta here if that scenario becomes a reality.

That 'logic' about gun control has been around forever, and by every measure of evidence available is completely fallacious. Where did it come from? Heston's cold, dead hands and the NRA?
 
ZenMaster

ZenMaster

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
You've got to be kidding me.

Look at the majority of Europe and Asia and tell me that's the case. People in Japan sure stab each other when they're pissed, but the fact that guns just aren't available is obviously a major factor is their complete absence of gun violence.

I don't want people with guns in the classroom. That is ludicrous. Not to mention you get some jackass with a gun in a situation like that who thinks they can be the hero, and they end up making the situation more dangerous. I can't believe you think that's a good idea.

If you want to keep guns out of criminals' hands, you have to start somewhere. Saying that you can't is just defeatist and stupid. I'm scared about how easy for bad drivers to get behind the wheel of a weapon that can go 100 and weighs a few tons. Trusting any citizen in good standing with a gun? I'm outta here if that scenario becomes a reality.
Click to expand...
Yeah I remember watching "some" of bowling for columbine (I hate micheal moore) and he gave some statistics of say germany with its few gun deaths and shows America's and goes on to say how horribly violent with guns we are. What he failed to mention was that death by knifing in Germany is mega X more than America's. Its all about spin to win your argument I suppose.
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
ZenMaster said:
Yeah I remember watching "some" of bowling for columbine (I hate micheal moore) and he gave some statistics of say germany with its few gun deaths and shows America's and goes on to say how horribly violent with guns we are. What he failed to mention was that death by knifing in Germany is mega X more than America's. Its all about spin to win your argument I suppose.
Click to expand...
yes, but knife vs. blunt object is a contest someone can win, and if it's person with knife vs. more than one person, it's no longer a contest. you can not say that about a gun.

i'm not saying the presence of guns is the only problem. since you brought up that movie, there is canada as a clear counterexample (they have lots o guns). but the fact is that if there are no guns, there is no gun violence ... and the point of the 2nd amendment is now completely moot, so why should we have them outside of the wilderness?
 
VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
yabbut, look at his website. the 'issues' section. please tell me it's not all libertarian rhetoric.
Click to expand...
yabbut? yabbut what? Well...OK. As I support Ron Paul, I have been to his website numerous times. He's a strict Constitutionalist if anything. Definitely not a "true" Libertarian. He is the only candidate that has a proven track record of, and knows the true meaning of "...defend the Constitution" which is part of the Oath of Office taken by the POTUS.

Any words on your "bigot by association" and my retort regarding donations?
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
VTXDave said:
yabbut? yabbut what? Well...OK. As I support Ron Paul, I have been to his website numerous times. He's a strict Constitutionalist if anything. Definitely not a "true" Libertarian. He is the only candidate that has a proven track record of, and knows the true meaning of "...defend the Constitution" which is part of the Oath of Office taken by the POTUS.

Any words on your "bigot by association" and my retort regarding donations?
Click to expand...
oh yeah. this isn't 'obama vs. paul', first of all, so I'm not here to defend or compare. Ron Paul should give back the money from Don Black unless he is a racist. Period. If I were to defend Obama, it would be to say that the NBPP does not stand for racism or intolerance, even if members of it undoubtedly are. Therefore, taking money from them is not principally wrong, unless there is a history of the organization perpetrating racism and violence. If that is the case, then it is every bit as foul.

I must profess that I do not care enough about the Libertarian party to discuss the semantics of Ron Paul's policy differences. The reason is that I think the Libertarians and Ron Paul are off the deep end in terms of what they believe in. And the few saving graces of the platform - sexual freedom applied to homosexuality and the right to safe, legal abortion - are not included in Ron Paul's agenda! I could not possibly support such a ludicrous platform. The right to life BS would be enough in itself. Even if you don't believe in abortion - for whatever reason - it is a public health issue, as it was when Roe v. Wade was decided ...
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
VTXDave said:
yabbut? yabbut what? Well...OK. As I support Ron Paul, I have been to his website numerous times. He's a strict Constitutionalist if anything. Definitely not a "true" Libertarian. He is the only candidate that has a proven track record of, and knows the true meaning of "...defend the Constitution" which is part of the Oath of Office taken by the POTUS.

Any words on your "bigot by association" and my retort regarding donations?
Click to expand...
One more comment about this. I think that people get WAY WAY too wrapped up in the constitution as a sacred document. It's not the Bible, for chrissake .. not that the Bible is an example that resonates with me, but it was written by some very smart people ... a very very long time ago. This world is changing. There are absolutely brilliant ideas in the there, but they were drafted for a different time and nation than we live in today. They were certainly human - hence we have amendments. When the document was written, people owned slaves and shit in holes in the ground!!
 
W

Wordz

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
Geeze a new guy with an attitude. Go get a fucking job so you can mellow out. I've been here quite a while, so maybe I should ask you where the fuck did you come from? If you are refering to my LIBS moniker in a couple a threads back, I was referring to libertarians, geeze you are a wise one aint ya? Hey I'll take you on as well as all these nazis on this site, name your poison. I usually try and get along............. well maybe not but I am a friendly guy..............well maybe not, but I have great tolerance for stupid assholes..............well maybe not, but I promise I'll try and do better......................well maybe not!
Click to expand...

Who are you calling nazi's? The people who don't need the government to hold our dicks when we piss?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top