or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies? - Page 11

post #401 of 753
I'm still trying to figure out why Mumbo Jumbo doesn't really care about what the constitution says and outlines and why he seems unwilling to allow these things, which apparently are all so critical and important, to be amended into the constitution through the constitutional process. Or why he and tonton are so afraid of letting individual states do anything on their own (as the constitution clearly calls for.)

This is a mystery.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #402 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I think it is quite obvious that, constitutional or not, it is failing.

That's not what you said at all. You said, verbatim, that it was failing, "because it is unconstitutional". Please explain your reasoning.
post #403 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm still trying to figure out why Mumbo Jumbo doesn't really care about what the constitution says and outlines and why he seems unwilling to allow these things, which apparently are all so critical and important, to be amended into the constitution through the constitutional process. Or why he and tonton are so afraid of letting individual states do anything on their own (as the constitution clearly calls for.)

This is a mystery.

Yeah! States are already doing such a great job at managing their own budgets and state education systems! Go States!

The reason all these things fail in the US is that there's no point. The poor knows that the rich will never allow them to improve their standard of living, so why even try? Working three jobs and still can't save any money? "Fuck it, I'm going to work but I ain't workin' hard, as it makes no difference." The rich don't even try because if they fail, they get million dollar bonuses anyway. The system is fucked and does not lead to pride in effort.
post #404 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah! States are already doing such a great job at managing their own budgets and state education systems!

Exactly why they should get out of the education business altogether. They've failed.

Gov. Christie's report finds private, parochial schools save N.J. $2.7B annually

NJ spends over $17,000 a year on each and every public school student.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #405 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah! States are already doing such a great job at managing their own budgets and state education systems! Go States!

The reason all these things fail in the US is that there's no point. The poor knows that the rich will never allow them to improve their standard of living, so why even try? Working three jobs and still can't save any money? "Fuck it, I'm going to work but I ain't workin' hard, as it makes no difference." The rich don't even try because if they fail, they get million dollar bonuses anyway. The system is fucked and does not lead to pride in effort.

The funny thing is that it's so difficult for some to see this. You don't suppose they don't want to?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #406 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The reason all these things fail in the US is that there's no point. The poor knows that the rich will never allow them to improve their standard of living, so why even try? Working three jobs and still can't save any money? "Fuck it, I'm going to work but I ain't workin' hard, as it makes no difference." The rich don't even try because if they fail, they get million dollar bonuses anyway. The system is fucked and does not lead to pride in effort.


While it is certainly possible to find examples of such behavior, it is FAR from being the norm.

I could just as easily go find a couple multi-million-dollar-lottery-winners and then turn around and say "everyone who plays the lotto wins millions!!!"

I'm all for charity, but I refuse to support people who keep making the same bad decisions over and over again because they just don't WANT to live within THEIR OWN means.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #407 of 753
This document... it is magic.

OK.

All the other nations in the world doing BETTER THAN YOU at education think that education is so important, such a fundamental investment to the good of the nations future, that it requires the full might of the economy and all the help it can get from government structures behind it.

But because your Founding Fathers didnt see a world where a national education system might be desirable or necessary, and didn't specify this thing in this magic document, you think it would be better to keep the States stuck in the 1700s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

As we return to following the Constitution, things will improve.

Don't like what's in (or not in) the Constitution? Our founding fathers, in their wisdom, established an an Amendment Process.

The Department of Education.

You can REFORM it, or you can ABOLISH it.

But the DoE isnt mentioned in The Holy Awesome and Best Constitution in the World, the Mighty Purple Rampant Constitution of the United States of America, the Best Thing to Ever Happen to Any Nation Anywhere.

So the DoE must DIE.

It really makes you wonder how other nations ever manage to achieve anything at all, ever, without this glorious, magical document written in the 1700s.

KEEP UP.
post #408 of 753
I'm still trying to figure out why Mumbo Jumbo doesn't really care about what the constitution says and outlines and why he seems unwilling to allow these things, which apparently are all so critical and important, to be amended into the constitution through the constitutional process. Or why he and tonton are so afraid of letting individual states do anything on their own (as the constitution clearly calls for.)

This is a mystery.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #409 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Exactly why they should get out of the education business altogether. They've failed.

Gov. Christie's report finds private, parochial schools save N.J. $2.7B annually

NJ spends over $17,000 a year on each and every public school student.

So when schools can develop their own curriculum, and Westboro Baptist School decides that reading is not required, as long as the kids are learning how to hate gays correctly, there should be no intervention from State or National government. When poor people who don't care about thier kids decide to take their kids out of school so that they can buy a MacBook Pro, that's just the system working. And that's going to help us compete against other countries. I see.
post #410 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm still trying to figure out why Mumbo Jumbo doesn't really care about what the constitution says and outlines and why he seems unwilling to allow these things, which apparently are all so critical and important, to be amended into the constitution through the constitutional process. Or why he and tonton are so afraid of letting individual states do anything on their own (as the constitution clearly calls for.)

This is a mystery.

I'm not American. So while I think your constitution's pretty cool, and you have to acknowledge the astonishing material victories won by its philosophical innovations, I don't get an erection, or even a little tingle in my perineum, when I see Glen Beck get his Constitution out.

No one in the world apart from Americans gets off on the American constitution. No one really cares how you change it. Go for it. It's yours, do what you want with it.

I'm merely saying that it is (in my considered opinion) fucking retarded to consider abolishing the Department of Education because the Founding Fathers didn't mention it.

That is all.
post #411 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

While it is certainly possible to find examples of such behavior, it is FAR from being the norm.

I could just as easily go find a couple multi-million-dollar-lottery-winners and then turn around and say "everyone who plays the lotto wins millions!!!"

I'm all for charity, but I refuse to support people who keep making the same bad decisions over and over again because they just don't WANT to live within THEIR OWN means.

And you know the larger portion these poeople are like this because..........?

It's pretty common knowledge for years that the middle class and the poor are losing ground in favor of the ultra rich. Hell back in the mid 90's ( now don't laugh ) Star Trek Deep Space Nine did a two parter on time travel back to the early 21rst century. The US was sharply dived between the poor class and the rich. Where do you think they got this idea? It's nothing new.


http://www.startrek.com/database_art...t-tense-part-i
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #412 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

While it is certainly possible to find examples of such behavior, it is FAR from being the norm.

And where it is certainly possible to find lazy people in Denmark (or the UK -- read Irvine Welsh) who don't do any work and are content to cheat the system, it is far from the norm.
post #413 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I'm merely saying that it is (in my considered opinion) fucking retarded to consider abolishing the Department of Education because the Founding Fathers didn't mention it.

Let me translate what you just said into different but equivalent terms:

Quote:
I'm merely saying that it is (in my considered opinion) fucking retarded to consider following the nation's constitution.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #414 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Let me translate what you just said into different but equivalent terms:

Your Founding Fathers. They were capable of seeing the future. I'm sure that they didn't put a national education system in that Glorious Document for a reason. They planned all of this. Well, if that's what they wanted.

Sigh.

You are faced with a deadly epidemic. But it’s OK! There is a CURE! We must innoculate everyone in the nation against Moran’s Disease!

MJ1970: “Moran’s Disease isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. We need an amendment before we can act. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom...”

Everybody Dying of Stupid Moran's Disease: “But if the Founding Fathers had known about Stupid Fucking Moran’s Disease they would have put it in!"

MJ1970: “Why do you hate the Constitution? Why don't you move to Finland?”

Camp David: "Obama is from Neptune. He want your brains. He has infected us."
post #415 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Your Founding Fathers. They were capable of seeing the future. I'm sure that they didn't put a national education system in that Glorious Document for a reason. They planned all of this. Well, if that's what they wanted.

We get that you don't want government to be constrained by a written document. It's okay. Good luck with that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #416 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So when schools can develop their own curriculum, and Westboro Baptist School decides that reading is not required, as long as the kids are learning how to hate gays correctly, there should be no intervention from State or National government.



There's nothing unconstitutional about government establishing performance standards for education, just as it does in all areas of public safety and welfare. There's also nothing wrong with allowing parents to decide for themselves which institution will accomplish their education goals effectively, proving itself worthy of their tuition dollars.

Of course I'm of the belief that education begins in the home - this belief will never reconcile with those who believe education is the responsibility of the state. I don't need the state interfering with my child's education.

Private schools educate, and the private sector continuously evaluates them on that standard. Most do it far less expensively than public schools. Those that don't perform fail and disappear.

Public schools indoctrinate. They excel at teaching children to jump when a bell rings, to line up in straight lines, and to be quiet on demand. They teach children to accept authority without question. When one student misbehaves, they punish collectively, destroying any concept of individual responsibility. They don't teach history, so the supreme Law of the land is disregarded as an irrelevant piece of paper. Public schools don't educate so much as they incarcerate. And when they fail to educate, governments throw more of my money at them, perpetuating their existence.

In the US, the public education system is broken by any reasonable definition. Private institutions - as well as charter schools that compete for their business, free from many of the constraints that have contributed to the failure of traditional public schools - continue to excel.

If you're going to teach your child to hate, there's nothing a school can do to change that. As far as hating "correctly", that's a privilege you leftists seem to have reserved for yourselves.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #417 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We get that you don't want government to be constrained by a written document. It's okay. Good luck with that.

And we get that you believe your constitution to be a sort of magical document which is important to follow to the very letter even if it hobbles your nations most important institutions.

And the best of luck with that, too.
post #418 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We get that you don't want government to be constrained by a written document. It's okay. Good luck with that.

Actually, just thinking about this...

You’re talking about abolishing your nation’s Department of Education.

Conservative, socialist and centrist nations the world over believe this ministry to be crucial. That is a boring fact. My defence of it is pathetically unrevolutionary. I’m Mr Boring Consensus on this issue— and from this you’re trying to say I’m arguing that government should be “unconstrained”.

No, no, no.

It is YOUR position that is radical. YOUR position is the extreme one, not mine. I’m not arguing that government should be "unconstrained" by suggesting that it might be a bad idea to abolish the Department of Education because it isn't in a document written before anyone had the idea that such a thing might even be possible.

It's absolutely insane to me that the institutions you should be proudest of, the envy of everyone in those nations not so blessed with your material wealth and the fruits of centuries of your shared labour, are the things you most want to get rid of. It's nuts.
post #419 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

There's nothing unconstitutional about government establishing performance standards for education, just as it does in all areas of public safety and welfare.

So how exactly is government going to develop and enforce those standards? I suppose they could set up a departmen... oh. Never mind.
post #420 of 753
Mumbo, we already know there's nothing conservative about "conservatives" in the US.
post #421 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And we get that you believe your constitution to be a sort of magical document which is important to follow to the very letter even if it hobbles your nations most important institutions.

And the best of luck with that, too.

What you're forgetting is that MJ's strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment is an extremist point of view.
post #422 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What you're forgetting is that MJ's strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment is an extremist point of view.

You guys are downright hilarious (if not a little scary). What is extreme about adhering to this:

Quote:
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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #423 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Conservative, socialist and centrist nations the world over believe this ministry to be crucial.

Are you continuing with this tired straw man you've created?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It is YOUR position that is radical. YOUR position is the extreme one, not mine.

Radical or not, it's at least the correct position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I’m not arguing that government should be "unconstrained" by suggesting that it might be a bad idea to abolish the Department of Education because it isn't in a document written before anyone had the idea that such a thing might even be possible.

But, in effect, that's exactly what you're arguing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It's absolutely insane to me that the institutions you should be proudest of, the envy of everyone in those nations not so blessed with your material wealth and the fruits of centuries of your shared labour, are the things you most want to get rid of. It's nuts.

Your question begging aside, thanks for sharing your opinion about those who wish to live under limited government power.

P.S. It should be noted, for anyone wishing to attribute to the Department of Education the great achievements of this country's entire history, that it was only established in 1980.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #424 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It's absolutely insane to me that the institutions you should be proudest of, the envy of everyone in those nations not so blessed with your material wealth and the fruits of centuries of your shared labour, are the things you most want to get rid of. It's nuts.

Is the Department of Education an institution we should be proudest of? Because you and several of the other globalists just told us that many other nations have better education systems than we do. Do other nations envy our education system?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #425 of 753
I'm still trying to figure out why Mumbo Jumbo doesn't really care about what the constitution says and outlines and why he seems unwilling to allow these things, which apparently are all so critical and important, to be amended into the constitution through the constitutional process. Or why he and tonton are so afraid of letting individual states do anything on their own (as the constitution clearly calls for.)

This is a mystery. And it is still unsolved because neither has addressed these questions or mysteries. The only thing I can conclude is that a) Mumbo Jumbo just doesn't think constitutions are all that important, and, b) both he and tonton trust bigger, more centralized governments more than smaller and decentralized governments.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #426 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's not what you said at all. You said, verbatim, that it was failing, "because it is unconstitutional". Please explain your reasoning.

Most unconstitutional government undertakings have failed, or are in the process of failing. Just like the Department of Education.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #427 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm still trying to figure out why Mumbo Jumbo doesn't really care about what the constitution says and outlines and why he seems unwilling to allow these things, which apparently are all so critical and important, to be amended into the constitution through the constitutional process. Or why he and tonton are so afraid of letting individual states do anything on their own (as the constitution clearly calls for.)

This is a mystery.

As I have explained, I am not American.

Consequently, I do not think that the American Constitution wafted down from Heaven on a cloud of angel-pubes. I am not American. I do not give fourteen squirts of leprechaun semen about what the American constitution contains, or how it is amended. Amend it, don’t amend it, use it to wrap a box set of Glenn Beck DVDs, I do not give a fuck. I am not American. I do not paticularly care about your constitution, because I am not American, and I am not obliged to.

To put it another way, I’m no more obliged to care about your Constitution than I am the new South African Constitution, which, as it happens, is a far more progressive and thorough document than the American Constitution. Yep, it is better than your Constitution. I am not a constitutional lawyer and I am not American, and I do not fucking care, and I don't have to.



Forgive the repetition, but you seem to have had a problem with my first explanation so I’m saving you the trouble of asking the question again.

As for your second point.

What I do care about is the batshit notion that because something is not included in the Constitution of the United States of America it should be abolished. This argument of yours is illogical, and counter-productive, and (to put it another way) fucking retarded.
post #428 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Most unconstitutional government undertakings have failed, or are in the process of failing. Just like the Department of Education.

And yet and yet and yet.

There are 28 other nations in the world who do not follow your Constitution, having their own constitutions, and enacting law that would therefore be unconstitutional in America, and enacting it successfully.

So its not really anything to do with your Constitution at all, is it.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE.
post #429 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Consequently, I do not think that the American Constitution wafted down from Heaven on a cloud of angel-pubes. I am not American. I do not give fourteen squirts of leprechaun semen about what the American constitution contains, or how it is amended. Amend it, don’t amend it, use it to wrap a box set of Glenn Beck DVDs, I do not give a fuck.

But this does not stop you from resorting to vulgarity of all kinds. \

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

As I have explained, I am not American.

I am not American. I do not paticularly care about your constitution, because I am not American, and I am not obliged to.

To put it another way, I’m no more obliged to care about your Constitution than I am the new South African Constitution, which, as it happens, is a far more progressive and thorough document than the American Constitution. Yep, it is better than your Constitution. I am not a constitutional lawyer and I am not American, and I do not fucking care, and I don't have to.

In short you don't care about it, and you also don't care that those of us who do live with it and care about it do care about.

So then I guess this whole argument (or at least your participation in it) is pointless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

What I do care about is the batshit notion that because something is not included in the Constitution of the United States of America it should be abolished.

But why? You've stated clearly "I am not American. I do not paticularly care about your constitution" so why care about how we conduct our affairs here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

This argument of yours is illogical, and counter-productive, and (to put it another way) fucking retarded.

Of course it's not. Adhering to the written and foundational document of a nation is not anywhere near the category of "illogical" not is it a "batshit notion" or "retarded." In fact just the opposite is true. When you live in a land of laws and constitutions and legal processes, the sane thing to do is to follow those and adhere to them. The illogical and insane thing is to ignore them for convenience.

Anyway, thanks for continuing to show your default argumentative approach which appears to include nothing but vulgarity, profanity and name calling towards or about things with which you disagree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #430 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Of course it's not. Adhering to the written and foundational document of a nation is not anywhere near the category of "illogical" not is it a "batshit notion" or "retarded." In fact just the opposite is true. When you live in a land of laws and constitutions and legal processes, the sane thing to do is to follow those and adhere to them. The illogical and insane thing is to ignore them for convenience.

Anyway, thanks for continuing to show your default argumentative approach which appears to include nothing but vulgarity, profanity and name calling towards or about things with which you disagree.

You do not understand what I am trying to argue. Maybe it’s my fault.

I will resort to very simple sentences, for both of our sakes. And I will not use the rude words you find distracting.

The specific content of the American Constitution is irrelevant to my argument.

To begin, I will remind you that the word “unconstitutional” is a specific legal term with a specific meaning. Its meaning is “something that contravenes constitutional law.”

That is the definition of the word “unconstitutional.”

It is possible for a nation to enact law on a national scale, even when that law is not specifically mentioned in a constitution, and for the law in question to respect that nation’s constitution.

A national government providing an institution on a national scale that is not mentioned in that nation’s constitution is not contravening that constitution unless there is a clause in that constitution that says that “such-and-such an institution is illegal.”

It might be illegal for all sorts of reasons. The reason in question is irrelevant to my argument.

When you use the word “unconstitutional”, in other words, MJ1970, you are using it incorrectly.

“Unconstitutional” is a specific legal term with a specific meaning. It means “something that contravenes constitutional law.”

THAT IS WHAT THE WORD MEANS. That is not open to debate.

Why not? Because is it is the definition of that word.

The Department of Education is not “unconstitutional”.

Why not? Because it is not prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is, in the correct and long-standing meaning of the word, CONSTITUTIONAL.

To consider abolishing it because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is illogical. It makes no sense legally or logically.

Why not? Because you can have a federal Department of Education, and you can still follow the Constitution.
post #431 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Anyway, thanks for continuing to show your default argumentative approach which appears to include nothing but vulgarity, profanity and name calling towards or about things with which you disagree.

Cunts, bollocks, fuck and piss.
post #432 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The specific content of the American Constitution is irrelevant to my argument.

But it is to mine and the whole original reason this subject arose, which was Ron Paul's desire to end the Department of EDucation. So if you are making some other argument (which you are), fine. But this is the argument about why Ron Paul would seek to end the Department of Education at the federal level in the United States of America.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

To begin, I will remind you that the word “unconstitutional” is a specific legal term with a specific meaning. Its meaning is “something that contravenes constitutional law.”

That is the definition of the word “unconstitutional.”

Or something that is not allowed by the constitution.


http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...onstitutional:

Quote:
unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country

Quote:
at variance with or not permitted by a constitution

Quote:
contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality

Quote:
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution; the status of a law, a procedure, or an act's accordance with the laws or guidelines set forth in the applicable constitution.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...constitutional

Quote:
not according or consistent with the constitution of a body politic (as a nation)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It is possible for a nation to enact law on a national scale, even when that law is not specifically mentioned in a constitution, and for the law in question to respect that nation’s constitution.

Yes. Correct. And no one has made a claim that this isn't possible. That's a straw man.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

A national government providing an institution on a national scale that is not mentioned in that nation’s constitution is not contravening that constitution unless there is a clause in that constitution that says that “such-and-such an institution is illegal.”

Wrong. When the constitution (as does the U.S. constitution) specifically enumerates the powers delegated (by the states) to the federal government and then says, "Hey, everything else not listed here is the responsibility of the states or the people. then said law is in violation of the constitution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

When you use the word “unconstitutional”, in other words, MJ1970, you are using it incorrectly.

Wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The Department of Education is not “unconstitutional”.

At the federal level it is. But then, as you said before, you don't really care. Now, apparently you do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Why not? Because it is not prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Your reasoning is flawed, and deeply so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

To consider abolishing it because it is not mentioned in the Constitution is illogical. It makes no sense legally or logically.

Wrong.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #433 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Cunts, bollocks, fuck and piss.

And we're done.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #434 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And we're done.

Again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Wrong. When the constitution (as does the U.S. constitution) specifically enumerates the powers delegated (by the states) to the federal government and then says, "Hey, everything else not listed here is the responsibility of the states or the people. then said law is in violation of the constitution.

This is the first time you've actually got it together to reason with me on facts for... god knows how long. You usually thank me for my "opinions" or drop a or say something provocative about "liberals" or use other things from you arsenal of avoidance techniques rather than engage in an argument.

Finally, when it gets down to something that looks like you've thought through, you drop facts.
post #435 of 753
MumJum,

The U.S. Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that any authority not granted BY THE CONSTITUTION to the federal government, shall by default, fall to the states.
In other words, things not specifically covered in the constitution are to be handled at the State level, not by the Fed.

Yes, there are LOTS of things the Fed does that fall outside it's scope according to the constitution... Just because they are doing it, doesn't mean they have the constitutional authority to be doing it. Of course, the civil war pretty much abolished all state's rights and suborned ALL authority to the Fed regardless of what the Constitution says.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #436 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

MumJum,

The U.S. Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that any authority not granted BY THE CONSTITUTION to the federal government, shall by default, fall to the states.
In other words, things not specifically covered in the constitution are to be handled at the State level, not by the Fed.

Yes, there are LOTS of things the Fed does that fall outside it's scope according to the constitution... Just because they are doing it, doesn't mean they have the constitutional authority to be doing it. Of course, the civil war pretty much abolished all state's rights and suborned ALL authority to the Fed regardless of what the Constitution says.

You nailed it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #437 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You nailed it.

You'll find that's an adequate response to every post I've ever made!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #438 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Finland has a Department of Education.
Korea has a Department of Education.
Canada has a Department of Education.
Hong Kong has a Department of Education.
The Netherlands has a Department of Education.
Liechtenstein has a Department of Education.
Japan has a Department of Education.
Australia has a Department of Education
Switzerland has a Department of Education.
Iceland has a Department of Education.
New Zealand has a Department of Education.
Denmark has a Department of Education.
Belgium has a Department of Education.
The Czech Republic has a Department of Education.
France has a Department of Education.
Ireland has a Department of Education.
Sweden has a Department of Education.
Austria has a Department of Education.

America is behind these nations in education. And your remedy is to get rid of the American Department of Education.

It amazes me how liberals can get away with saying crazy things like this. It betrays the fact that they either don't understand what the United States is, or don't have the logic and reasoning skills to follow their suggestions to their inevitable conclusions.

You will notice, Mumbo, that you didn't simply strike all the European names on that list and write "Europe has a Department of Education." There's a reason for that.

The U.S. is gigantic single market meant to foster its own internal competition and adjust for regional differences. One-size-fits-all solutions imposed from the top are attractive to a lot of people on the left side of the political continuum because they crave structure and control of life's events. But the U.S. is supposed to foster healthy competition among states and have people move around freely to find the best jobs, schools, and lifestyles.

What is it exactly that you envision a U.S. Federal D. of E. doing, to make the education system better?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #439 of 753
The role of the U.S. Department of Education is rather nebulous; states themselves control education funding and educational curricula development so why do we even have a federal education department that has no specific function?

Back during the Reagan Administration there was serious consideration to cut the department completely; that couldn't be done so they appointed a Secretary whom many consider the best administrator the Department of Education ever had; Dr. William J. Bennett, who advocated a reduced federal role in education, used the department as a bully pulpit to advance state initiatives, and, at the time, pushed "What Works" in schools, a publication that cited success stories in education. Yet, the issue remains that the U.S. Department of Education is largely without mission and without validation. State education departments and commissions control the business of education in this nation thus the federal education department has no raison d'être; as such it could be eliminated and the costs passed on to states to help students directly.
post #440 of 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

The role of the U.S. Department of Education is rather nebulous; states themselves control education funding and educational curricula development so why do we even have a federal education department that has no specific function?

Back during the Reagan Administration there was serious consideration to cut the department completely; that couldn't be done so they appointed a Secretary whom many consider the best administrator the Department of Education ever had; Dr. William J. Bennett, who advocated a reduced federal role in education, used the department as a bully pulpit to advance state initiatives, and, at the time, pushed "What Works" in schools, a publication that cited success stories in education. Yet, the issue remains that the U.S. Department of Education is largely without mission and without validation. State education departments and commissions control the business of education in this nation thus the federal education department has no raison d'être; as such it could be eliminated and the costs passed on to states to help students directly.

The left is growing government?????
Quote:
Herbert Hoover

Increased federal spending38 percent (current dollars)
Passed the Agricultural Marketing Act (welfare for farmers)
Passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff
Waged war on drugs (alcohol)
Passed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (pork and corporate welfare)
Passed massive tax increases
Dwight Eisenhower

Increased federal spending30 percent
Created Department of Health, Education, & Welfare (and spending)
Put Earl Warren and William Brennan on Supreme Court
Helped install Shah Pahlevi in Iran (smart, real smart)
Extended Socialism Security to 10 million additional persons
Started American involvement in Vietnam
Passed federal highway legislation
Created NASA
Started student loan program (aka, program to raise college tuition so no one can afford it)
Kept federal counterfeiting to a minimum, causingyou to lose only 9 cents off your 1952 dollar(Source: The Inflation Calculator)
Richard Nixon

Increased federal spending70 percent
Created EPA, OSHA, and CPSC
Started "affirmative action"
Imposed price and wage controls
Made your 1968 dollarworth just 78 cents by the timehe left office
Proposed minimum national income
Gerald Ford

Knocked 8 cents off your dollar in just two years [He didn't WIN (Whip Inflation Now]
Increased federal spendingthroughoutterm
Reduced spending on federal prisons by pardoning Nixon
Overall, not too bad for a Republican and better than...
Ronald Reagan

Increased federal spending53 percent
ElevatedVeteran's Administration
Added 250,000 civilian employees
Created drug czar's office
Escalated war on drugs
"Saved" Social Security by increasing payroll tax
Lowered the value of your 1980 dollarto 73 cents
GeorgeHerbert WalkerBush

Increased federal spending 12 percent
Signed the (litigious) Americans with Disabilities Act
Managed to knock 13 cents off the value of your dollar in just four years
Just said "Yes" to new taxes
Republican Congress

Held your dollar's loss in value to a mere 11 cents[Newt and the (1995-2000) gang]
Increased federal spending and taxes collectedeach year
Eviscerated ancient right of Englishmen and Americans--habeas corpus
Flunked the acid test of economic sanity--raising the minimum wage (mandatory unemployment law)
Passed Freedom to Farm Act (at taxpayers' expense, that is)
George Bush II continues this inglorious tradition.He proposes a huge increase in defense spending: "My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high: whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay it."

"Never too high" is a good description of the federal budget under Republican presidents. "Defend our country" is a prevarication. We all know the purpose of the defense budget is to maintain a global military empire--the same thing, by the way, that stirs up terrorism and is a magnet for terrorist hatreds.

Yes, all this new spending was spurred on by the events of September 11. First, by all accounts, we already have the strongest military in the world. Why expand it? If we need more troops at home, there are plenty doing nothing guarding Japan, a country with no enemies. Second, there is always a crisis that justifies an increase in spending. If there isn't a real crisis, they will invent one or provoke one. The point is, if you really "trust the people, not the government," you will respond to crises by supporting more individual freedom and less government.

Third, the world did not begin on September 11. Our 104-year-old policy of global intervention has made many enemies. What is happening now is a textbook example of how government grows. Government intervenes into some aspect of life, domestic or foreign, where it doesn't belong. It screws it up good, creates problems that would not otherwise exist, and then uses its powerful propaganda machine to disguise the true cause of the problem and convince people that even more government action is required. To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises, government creates its own demand.

Now for the welfare part of the welfare/warfare state. Lyndon Johnson was less interested in fighting a socialist state abroad than he was in creating a socialist state at home, but he fought the Vietnam War anyway to appear tough on communism, protect his right flank, and stay in power. Bush is the opposite. These days, Bush is focused on foreign policy. But to win in '04, he must protect his left flank and dole out the welfare. So, he recently said:

I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom. Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. I ask Congress to join me this year to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights, to give uninsured workers credits to help buy health coverage, to approve an historic increase in spending for veterans' health, and to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs.
Even FDR would be blushing at this point in the speech.

Bush doesn't neglect welfare for the heartland, either. He promises to ask Congress "to enact new safeguards for 401(k) and pension plans, because employees who have worked hard and saved all their lives should not have to risk losing everything if their company fails." I don't know what that means, but once government gets its foot in the door, you know it isgoing to make matters worse and end up socializing all pensions. Bush promises a "productive farm policy." I don't know what that means, either, but I know my pocket is going to be picked somewhere along the line. The only productive farm policy is, of course, laissez-faire.

Those who support small-"r", Jeffersonian republican government would agree with some of the words spoken by the president: "Evil is real, and it must be opposed. . . . Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential. . . . We choose freedom and the dignity of every life."

Libertarian republicans believe this; conservative Republicans do not, never have, and never will. They are having too much fun down there in Washington running their domestic and global empires.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Can One Possibly Support Obama's Economic Policies?