AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Barrack Obama is awesome.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barrack Obama is awesome. - Page 2

post #41 of 119
12/13/07 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

It is only a violation of the constitution if the supreme court says it is, and they said it ain't.

Is that so?



You can do better than that. Souter's point in the dissent isn't explained away by "he didn't get enough votes to carry the day." That's just lazy. Voucher programs are controversial here because they basically amount to a direct aid for religious institutions, which is unconstitutional. Zelman says vouchers are not direct aid because the government isn't directly funneling money into those schools. The parents have something of a "choice" of where to spend the money. But when all the factors that go into deciding where to spend the money lead to something like 90%+ of it going to religious schools, you're just kidding yourself that it isn't an unconstitutional direct aid. The end result is that we're subsidizing religious schools to deal with the problems we have in our public school districts. That isn't right.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 119
12/13/07 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Voucher programs are controversial here because they basically amount to a direct aid for religious institutions, which is unconstitutional. Zelman says vouchers are not direct aid because the government isn't directly funneling money into those schools. The parents have something of a "choice" of where to spend the money. But when all the factors that go into deciding where to spend the money lead to something like 90%+ of it going to religious schools, you're just kidding yourself that it isn't an unconstitutional direct aid.

Let me see if I understand the full situation here.

First, the government takes money people to pay for schools.

Second, through a "voucher" program they allow the people they've taken the money from in the first place to decide where this education money is used/spent so long as it is an educational institution.

Third, many of those people choose to use the voucher to send their kids to a religious-based school.

And some how this amounts to a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the establishment clause?

It seems to me that it is a government endorsement of education and individual choice.

But assuming you (and others) choose to cling to this idea that vouchers are somehow a violation of the establishment clause (personally I think that reasoning is tenuous at best), what would you say about education tax credits or deductions where people could spend their own money on any school (religious included) they want and then get a tax credit/deduction for the amount spent for the school? Surely that cannot be considered a violation of the establishment clause even with the most tortured and twisted reasoning.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 119
12/13/07 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

But assuming you (and others) choose to cling to this idea that vouchers are somehow a violation of the establishment clause

Because I don't think by just giving someone a "choice," regardless of how unequal those choices are, that it defeats the prohibition against direct aid. I wouldn't oppose vouchers from a constitutional perspective if the choices in the voucher program were more equal. The Zelman majority was just paying lip-service to the whole "choice" concept. For instance, in Zelman, something like 90% of students choosing a private school chose a religious private school. They could have chosen a secular private school but the voucher money wasn't nearly enough to cover that. But the Catholic Church heavily subsidizes education for the students of its schools. The voucher money neatly coincided with the tuition rate for these private religious schools. If they made the choices more equal by giving enough money for these poor students to actually afford choosing a private secular school, then I don't see as great a Constitutional problem. The students actually have a choice there.

Regardless, I oppose vouchers from a public policy perspective.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 119
12/13/07 at 9:44am
A tale of two Christmas cards:



Reply
Reply
post #45 of 119
12/13/07 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

It is only a violation of the constitution if the supreme court says it is, and they said it ain't. Even though I hate religion, I send my kids to a religious school BTW - it just happens to be the best match, and I de-indoctrinate them at home. I actually think it is good for the kids to get differing views on religion at an early age, it makes them natural skeptics.

Voucher programs work great in Canada, I don't see why they are so controversial here.

Frankly I don't care where you send your kids, I just don't want to pay for it. No more Dept. of Education, no more public schools, it's all just a big bowl of failure.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #46 of 119
12/13/07 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Frankly I don't care where you send your kids, I just don't want to pay for it. No more Dept. of Education, no more public schools, it's all just a big bowl of failure.

I go the opposite way.

No more local funding of schools-- completely state or federally funded.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 119
12/13/07 at 11:02am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Frankly I don't care where you send your kids, I just don't want to pay for it. No more Dept. of Education, no more public schools, it's all just a big bowl of failure.

That would be fine for me, but pretty crap for poor people. In fact, pretty crap for me since I started out as a poor person in public school.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #48 of 119
12/13/07 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Frankly I don't care where you send your kids, I just don't want to pay for it. No more Dept. of Education, no more public schools, it's all just a big bowl of failure.

Please point out all of your historical examples of great success in creating high levels of general education and literacy in societies without public schooling.

Or do you simply eschew the value of that, favoring something more like a feudal model, with lots of ignorant peons cheaply available to do the work of a few wealthy lords?

All you've got is nuance-free, broad-brush, intellectually lazy declarations that "it" isn't working, with the equally nuance-free, intellectually lazy solution that fixing "it" means that "something" has to "change"... and you fool yourself into believing this simple mindedness is a virtue of some sort, making you a genius who sees through all of the annoying details and the clutter of facts that those around you bog themselves down with, someone who courageously embraces "change" while others around your fear it.

Yes, it's very easy to categorize everyone else who might actually have good reasons to worry about the details of change as simply being "fearful", unlike brave change-embracing souls like yourself.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #49 of 119
12/13/07 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Please point out all of your historical examples of great success in creating high levels of general education and literacy in societies without public schooling.

Late 18th and early 19th century America?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 119
12/13/07 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Late 18th and early 19th century America?

What makes you think generally high levels of education and literacy existed in the US during that time period?

Even to the extent that the US might have been doing well compared to other nations at that time, public schooling was already part of the picture.

From http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ej...tedStates.html
Quote:
American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century.

The most preliminary form of public education was in existence in the 1600s in the New England colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The overriding belief on educating the children was more due to religious reasons and was easy to implement, as the only groups in existence were the Puritans and the Congregationalists. However, the influx of people from many countries and belonging to different faiths led to a weakening of the concept. People refused to learn only in English and opposed the clergy imposing their religious views through public education. By the middle of the eighteenth century, private schooling had become the norm.

After the Declaration of Independence, 14 states had their own constitutions by 1791, and out of the 14, 7 states had specific provisions for education. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public education around the same time were Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington. It was still very difficult to translate the concept to practice because of the political upheavals, vast immigration, and economic transformations. Thus, even for many more decades, there were many private schools, and charitable and religious institutions dominating the scene.

From http://groups.ku.edu/~stl/historyofliteracy.htm:
Quote:
Literacy has never been a fixed stable concept. In the distant past, literacy meant the capacity to speak and sing, to use spoken language eloquently for public purposes. As recently as 100 years ago in the United States, the ability to sign one's own name on a land deed or bank check was the socially accepted mark of literacy. Merely being able to mark an "X" on a deed at times made one literate.

Literacy, the ability to sign one's complete name in a registry book, was a prerequisite for voting during the late 19th century in the United States. This requirement kept many rural and poor adult citizens from voting. A similar literacy requirement for voting was extended into the 1960's, though by this time voters had to pass a reading and writing exam. Those individuals most likely to be excluded from the right to vote were rural, poor, people of color, and women.

My impression is that literacy (even when defined in very meager terms) was not at all a common thing in the US or any country until well-funded public educational institutions were in place. To whatever extent the time period centered around the year 1800 might have been a relative high point, that high point appears to correspond to a similar relative high point in public education. When that early peak waned, education went back to being a privilege of the wealthy until public education got back on track again.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #51 of 119
12/13/07 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I go the opposite way.

No more local funding of schools-- completely state or federally funded.

Why is that a solution? You gonna reduce my property tax to make up for the increase in my income tax?
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 119
12/13/07 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

You gonna reduce my property tax to make up for the increase in my income tax?

Oh geez don't say stuff like that when I have Coke in my mouth. I think you owe me a new keyboard and monitor.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 119
12/13/07 at 8:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

1. He would oppress homosexuals by continuting a long standing Republican tradition of making laws that deny homosexuals equal rights, including (but not limited to) the following:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAct...ew&Issue_id=10

"There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

-- i.e. he thinks that gay marriage would destroy society

OMG! He opposes gay marriage! Interesting...so does basically every other candidate from each party. Obama dodges the issue and thinks it should be left up to each denomination. Of course, that wouldn't work, because marriage is a legal construct as well as one of faith.

Quote:

2. The seperation of church and state suffered greatly under Bush, and Huckabee is the candidate most likely to continue or expand those policies:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Am...an_Nation.html

Separation of Church and State has not suffered under Bush. That is simply rhetorical nonsense. Your link is just a blogger's bullshit biased view.

Quote:

3. http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Note the huge difference between me and Bush - I just won't vote for a guy like him, but I don't want to deny him his citizenship because he is a religious ass, even though he wants to kick people like me out of the country.

OK, you have a nice quote there. Question: Has bush ever tried to implement a policy denying atheists citizenship? Has he tried---even TRIED--to kick people like you out?

Quote:
\t
4. No matter what the powers of the president are, I have the right to pick people for that post who I don't consider crazy

You also have the right to not know what crazy means and be a bigot.

Quote:

5. Impact on me of a religious president: Risks of persecution, paying taxes for things like "intelligent design"

Explain what kind of "persecution" you'd face and show me an example of someone paying taxes for intelligent design.

Quote:

But mainly I don't want the president to increase the power of religious organizations by doing crap like "faith based tax deductible gifts"

Deductions of that type have been allowed for some time.

Quote:

6. If we have schools paid for by public money, they have to be secular schools. If you want it some other way, support voucher programs like I do, but don't force me to expose my kids to the vapid braying of Christian prayer groups there.

Are Huckabee and Romney proposing something other than secular schools?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #54 of 119
12/14/07 at 5:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Virtually all of our Presidents have had executive experience. Bush, Clinton, Bush 41 as VP (and director of the CIA), Carter and so forth. The last Senator to become President was Kennedy. What does that tell you?

That Senators make better Presidents?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The words "integity" and "WashingtonDC" are mutually exclusive. Paul and Kucinich, the only two who remotely qualify re. "integrity" thus have zero chance of winning either their party's nomination, or the presidency.

The US political system (similarly that of any country you care to mention) is designed, or has evolved, to systematically exclude people with integrity.

Scum rises to the top, and dead fish flow with the current.

Nail, meet hammer. Hammer, nail.

At this point, why would anyone want a Washington insider, when it's been amply demonstrated the last 8 years that neither party's leadership can be trusted to run things efficiently, and are just different sides of the same coin?
(no, that's not a Ron Paul support post.)
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #55 of 119
12/14/07 at 7:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

That Senators make better Presidents?

Or maybe that Senators are media-created sensations with nice smiles, bad backs, a penchant for celebrity whores....and invading Cuba?

Quote:


Nail, meet hammer. Hammer, nail.

At this point, why would anyone want a Washington insider, when it's been amply demonstrated the last 8 years that neither party's leadership can be trusted to run things efficiently, and are just different sides of the same coin?
(no, that's not a Ron Paul support post.)

Well, no one wants a Washington insider. However, that term is problematic. Isn't HRC one? What about Fred Thompson...does he count? Also, elections are not held as a free-for-all. There will end up being a choice, first between party candidates and then between two people. One will be seen as better than the other. And that person might end up being an "insider."

Insiders aren't all bad anyway. They often know how to get things done in the most clusterfucked town in the world. Of course, they could also be corrupt. But it's not all cut and dried.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #56 of 119
12/14/07 at 8:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Why is that a solution? You gonna reduce my property tax to make up for the increase in my income tax?

Local funding of schools results in wide disparities between rich and poor school districts. If you believe that the quality of your public school education should not have to depend on where you live, then state or national funding of schools would equalize things.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 119
12/14/07 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Or maybe that Senators are media-created sensations with nice smiles, bad backs, a penchant for celebrity whores....and invading Cuba?



Well, no one wants a Washington insider. However, that term is problematic. Isn't HRC one? What about Fred Thompson...does he count? Also, elections are not held as a free-for-all. There will end up being a choice, first between party candidates and then between two people. One will be seen as better than the other. And that person might end up being an "insider."

Insiders aren't all bad anyway. They often know how to get things done in the most clusterfucked town in the world. Of course, they could also be corrupt. But it's not all cut and dried.

Kennedy also started a host of programs that benifited us right up until today ( all kinds of education physical and otherwise etc. ). In a very short period of time he did more than most presidents do in 2 terms. Hell! We would have never landed on the moon if it wasn't for him. He recognized forward thinking is needed to reform this country for a new era. He was anything but stay the course. He was also a brave president for his actions in the missle crisis and on the steps of that High School in Alabama when he ordered Wallace to let those kids attend. Also if you even start on Vietnam we've already been over that one. The indications are he wanted to pull out but his life getting cut short didn't allow him to. He was popular for bucking the system and it probably got him killed.

I've noted before Obama's attitude is similar. This really is the kind of thinking we need now. Not someone who'll just stay the course.

I'm going to go ahead and call you a dummy for this one SDW.
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 #58 of 119
12/14/07 at 8:34am
Humiliation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKHBSFSosY
Quote:
MODERATOR: Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton's former National Security Adviser, State Department policy director and Navy Secretary among others, advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisers, and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you're promising voters?
(Laughter)

Obama: You know I am --

Hillary: (Laughing) I want to hear that.

Obama: Well, Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well. (Laughter)
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 119
12/14/07 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

A tale of two Christmas cards:




My intent-o-meter is broken. You'll have to tell me the tale.

I personally think it very sad that since the Obamas do not have a family dog, they make the youngest daughter act as a surrogate. Do they let her walk upright since she isn't allowed to sit up? Perhaps they will let her wear shoes now that it has been pointed out that she should be treated as a human.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #60 of 119
12/14/07 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is the case on point for voucher programs. Souter's dissent I think makes a good point: You cant outsource public school education to the Catholic Church. You cant violate the Constitution to solve problems youre having with a school system. it's a tough point to get around.

Could we say that the consensus viewpoint is that vouchers have a valid secular purpose and the refusal to realize that is only due to religious bigotry?

Or do we only care about that consensus thing when we are discussing global warming?

Can I call you a denier now?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #61 of 119
12/14/07 at 9:43am
Well, it's looking more and more like Obama. I'm sure Republicans are slowly getting giddy at the prospects.

Let's assume Trumptman and SDW really do have the pulse of the nation and Americans really are far more conservative then Democrats believe they are. If that's true then we might as well just hand the keys to the White House to the Republican candidate if Obama gets the nod.

I know I'll get slammed for this, but I believe the country is far more prejudicial, racial and bigoted then we think. I believe we all get along well. Better than we ever have. We know how to play nice in the sandbox. But in private -- deep down inside -- we're all extremely judgmental and racist. And I'm speaking for all colors, races and creeds. And if Trumptman and SDW and Jubelum are correct and that the South really is the grand arbiter of who the President can and will be, then Democrats are toast with Obama.

This country will NOT elect a black man as their president. Period.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #62 of 119
12/14/07 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Could we say that the consensus viewpoint is that vouchers have a valid secular purpose and the refusal to realize that is only due to religious bigotry?

Or do we only care about that consensus thing when we are discussing global warming?

...because clearly "consensus" means the same thing when we're talking about scientific evidence and when we're talking about a majority of the Court endorsing a particular legal reasoning.

Reply
Reply
post #63 of 119
12/14/07 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

...because clearly "consensus" means the same thing when we're talking about scientific evidence and when we're talking about a majority of the Court endorsing a particular legal reasoning.


Well no matter what the case we are talking about majority perspectives... you are citing the dissenting opinion as if were precedent instead of sour grapes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Well, it's looking more and more like Obama. I'm sure Republicans are slowly getting giddy at the prospects.

Let's assume Trumptman and SDW really do have the pulse of the nation and Americans really are far more conservative then Democrats believe they are. If that's true then we might as well just hand the keys to the White House to the Republican candidate if Obama gets the nod.

I know I'll get slammed for this, but I believe the country is far more prejudicial, racial and bigoted then we think. I believe we all get along well. Better than we ever have. We know how to play nice in the sandbox. But in private -- deep down inside -- we're all extremely judgmental and racist. And I'm speaking for all colors, races and creeds. And if Trumptman and SDW and Jubelum are correct and that the South really is the grand arbiter of who the President can and will be, then Democrats are toast with Obama.

This country will NOT elect a black man as their president. Period.

I find it interesting that who Democrats choose or might choose is proof of X in Republicans.

That might possibly be the largest logical leap I have ever witnessed.

If the Democrats now fail to nominate Obama are they racist? You conclusion that Republicans won't elect him states this.

Perhaps they are simply sexist instead since they won't elect a women even when benefiting from a tremendous gender gap.

The best question though is for Jimmac, yourself and others because you have contended that what we all really want and need is a dash of Clinton nostalgia. We all "want" the 90's back and those great times we had with ol'Bill.

How true will that be if Hillary cannot get the nomination running on the Clinton record with women as a majority of the populace and clearly a profound majority within the Democratic party?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #64 of 119
12/14/07 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

This country will NOT elect a black man as their president. Period.

All else being equal, certainly a black man is going to have more trouble than a white man (or a white woman?) getting elected in this country simply due to being black. Yes, there's still a lot of lingering racism out there.

If ever a black man can win, however, I think a black Democrat has a very good chance right now, simply because the Republican party is hurting so badly, and the coalition between religious conservatives and economic conservatives is coming apart. Whereas Democrats will easily be able to get behind whichever Democratic candidate wins, the current slate of Republicans has a lot of Republicans feeling pretty despondent about their available choices.

While I'll agree that theirs a lot of latent racism in the US, I don't think it's a very passionate force, the kind of thing that would get otherwise dispirited Republican voters running to the polls simply to keep a black man out of office.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #65 of 119
12/14/07 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well no matter what the case we are talking about majority perspectives... you are citing the dissenting opinion as if were precedent instead of sour grapes.

The state of the law is the majority opinion in Zelman. I think the law is wrong and I like Souter's dissenting approach better. That does not mean I suffer from the illusion that it has precedential value. It does not; it has only persuasive value. I don't deny that is the state of the law; I reject the legal reasoning the court employed. Legal reasoning is a far more amorphous concept than empirical scientific evidence. Reasonable minds can disagree about legal reasoning. It is significantly harder for reasonably minds to dispute the weight of scientific evidence behind global warming. Those two are clearly not the same things.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 119
12/14/07 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

The state of the law is the majority opinion in Zelman. I think the law is wrong and I like Souter's dissenting approach better. That does not mean I suffer from the illusion that it has precedential value. It does not; it has only persuasive value. I don't deny that is the state of the law; I reject the legal reasoning the court employed. Legal reasoning is a far more amorphous concept than empirical scientific evidence. Reasonable minds can disagree about legal reasoning. It is significantly harder for reasonably minds to dispute the weight of scientific evidence behind global warming. Those two are clearly not the same things.

The "weight of scientific evidence" behind global warming amounts to attempting to tell what an elephant is by feeling the tail. It is a proto-science but we certainly do not have any falsifiable proof that we can predict the climate or weather decades and centuries into the future. It is something clearly in dispute and it is something reasonable minds can disagree on as well. This being at the proto stage it is very disturbing that such actions are suggested when the results change so dramatically as new variables become known.

Can you show that the change of consensus with regard to legal and scientific thought has shown to be any less dramatic over time? Science has made dramatic shifts due to a new bit of empirical evidence discovered and will again as other evidence is discovered. Continental drift is a great example of a sudden shift in scientific thinking.

That said, clearly science alone does us no good and having an answer to an equation or variable in isolation does us no good.

Now as for rejecting the legal reasoning the courts employed, it sounds like you are in denial regarding it and are thus.. a denier. Your own bigotry cannot accept the sound reasoning of the the consensus in this instance.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #67 of 119
12/14/07 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Now as for rejecting the legal reasoning the courts employed, it sounds like you are in denial regarding it and are thus.. a denier. Your own bigotry cannot accept the sound reasoning of the the consensus in this instance.

This isn't a serious response.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 119
12/14/07 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Well, it's looking more and more like Obama. I'm sure Republicans are slowly getting giddy at the prospects.

Let's assume Trumptman and SDW really do have the pulse of the nation and Americans really are far more conservative then Democrats believe they are. If that's true then we might as well just hand the keys to the White House to the Republican candidate if Obama gets the nod.

I know I'll get slammed for this, but I believe the country is far more prejudicial, racial and bigoted then we think. I believe we all get along well. Better than we ever have. We know how to play nice in the sandbox. But in private -- deep down inside -- we're all extremely judgmental and racist. And I'm speaking for all colors, races and creeds. And if Trumptman and SDW and Jubelum are correct and that the South really is the grand arbiter of who the President can and will be, then Democrats are toast with Obama.

This country will NOT elect a black man as their president. Period.

Well I'm not as skeptical as you. I think the country wants change and I still think the republicans are toast no matter who's running on the other side.

I don't think he'd have any trouble getting into the Whitehouse. It's him staying alive that I worry about. Unfortunately Woman or Black they'd be the target of every wacko moron out there that thinks it's ok to decide for the rest of us who runs the country at the point of a gun.
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 #69 of 119
12/14/07 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The "weight of scientific evidence" behind global warming amounts to attempting to tell what an elephant is by feeling the tail. It is a proto-science but we certainly do not have any falsifiable proof that we can predict the climate or weather decades and centuries into the future. It is something clearly in dispute and it is something reasonable minds can disagree on as well. This being at the proto stage it is very disturbing that such actions are suggested when the results change so dramatically as new variables become known.

Can you show that the change of consensus with regard to legal and scientific thought has shown to be any less dramatic over time? Science has made dramatic shifts due to a new bit of empirical evidence discovered and will again as other evidence is discovered. Continental drift is a great example of a sudden shift in scientific thinking.

That said, clearly science alone does us no good and having an answer to an equation or variable in isolation does us no good.

Now as for rejecting the legal reasoning the courts employed, it sounds like you are in denial regarding it and are thus.. a denier. Your own bigotry cannot accept the sound reasoning of the the consensus in this instance.

Nick

It sounds like you're reasoning is depending on those unknown variables to be a certain way alot!

Meanwhile there's a great deal of evidence in the other direction.
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 #70 of 119
12/14/07 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

All else being equal, certainly a black man is going to have more trouble than a white man (or a white woman?) getting elected in this country simply due to being black. Yes, there's still a lot of lingering racism out there.

If ever a black man can win, however, I think a black Democrat has a very good chance right now, simply because the Republican party is hurting so badly, and the coalition between religious conservatives and economic conservatives is coming apart. Whereas Democrats will easily be able to get behind whichever Democratic candidate wins, the current slate of Republicans has a lot of Republicans feeling pretty despondent about their available choices.

While I'll agree that theirs a lot of latent racism in the US, I don't think it's a very passionate force, the kind of thing that would get otherwise dispirited Republican voters running to the polls simply to keep a black man out of office.

I hope you're right. I really do.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #71 of 119
12/14/07 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

This isn't a serious response.

You are right. Bigotry as strident as yours should be treated with a much harsher tone.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #72 of 119
12/14/07 at 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It sounds like you're reasoning is depending on those unknown variables to be a certain way alot!

Meanwhile there's a great deal of evidence in the other direction.

Is that what you call it, evidence? They are facts in isolation. We have no falsifiable theory that shows we have the ability to predict the weather fifty or one hundred years into the future.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 119
12/14/07 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are right. Bigotry as strident as yours should be treated with a much harsher tone.

Nick



Let me get this straight. It's bigotry to disagree with a Supreme Court decision? Have you ever been a "bigot," trumptman?
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 119
12/14/07 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post



Let me get this straight. It's bigotry to disagree with a Supreme Court decision? Have you ever been a "bigot," trumptman?

You didn't say you only disagreed with it. You said you rejected it. The court devised and upheld the five point test. Education is a perfectly valid secular purpose to receive government funds. There are plenty of private colleges with religious names, foundations and historical religious origins that receive grants, and where students can receive financial aid. I'm sure your alma mater is among them.

The court also stated that the program had to test as religiously neutral.

You take the same facts and find that education has no secular purpose and is a religious endorsement. You state the fact that certain schools receive the majority of the funds when no other religion or secular school is denied the right to set up schools or solicit for those students as a religious endorsement as well. The court declares this religiously neutral. You believe there is no such thing as being neutral with regard to religion.

You are driven by your biases. You stated them plainly. Anything that sends money to a religious organization is a religious endorsement. In your view a religious organization can never have or serve a secular purpose. That means you are demonstrating not neutrality, but intolerance which makes you a bigot.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #75 of 119
12/14/07 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You didn't say you only disagreed with it. You said you rejected it.

Oh. It's so clear now!.

"Disagreeing" with the rationale of a Supreme Court decision is fine. But if you "reject" the rationale... then you're a bigot. That logic is impeccable.



Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The court devised and upheld the five point test. Education is a perfectly valid secular purpose to receive government funds. There are plenty of private colleges with religious names, foundations and historical religious origins that receive grants, and where students can receive financial aid. I'm sure your alma mater is among them.

The court also stated that the program had to test as religiously neutral.

You take the same facts and find that education has no secular purpose and is a religious endorsement. You state the fact that certain schools receive the majority of the funds when no other religion or secular school is denied the right to set up schools or solicit for those students as a religious endorsement as well. The court declares this religiously neutral. You believe there is no such thing as being neutral with regard to religion.

You are driven by your biases. You stated them plainly. Anything that sends money to a religious organization is a religious endorsement. In your view a religious organization can never have or serve a secular purpose. That means you are demonstrating not neutrality, but intolerance which makes you a bigot.

Nick

Nick, I am not even going to get into this with you.

You're misstating my points and misstating the law. If I thought you had any good-faith interest in talking about vouchers on the merits, I'd be more than willing to discuss it with you. But I feel that your discussion about the voucher case is just a bad-faith post-hoc rationalization for your "bigot" charge. If you really want to talk about vouchers, let me know. I'd be happy to. But under circumstances where I think you're just being defensive and where you seem to have to "win" something, we can't have a satisfying discussion.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 119
12/14/07 at 2:53pm
Defensive? Sorry but the decision accomodates my view just fine. I am not the one having to explain why my viewpoint happens to be rejected by the courts.

You talk about discussing something on the merits which is what I have brought up and what you have dismissed. You have not explained in any form or fashion how simply giving a religious school a voucher to educate a student is a religious endorsement. The reason you haven't is you can't. The court found for the program for this exact reason. You reject their decision because you reject the belief that a religious institution can act in a secular and neutral manner. You can't explain why this is so because there is no logical rationale. It is a straight up bias that you hold.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #77 of 119
12/14/07 at 3:36pm
I'm just curious.

1) Are there any examples out there where taxpayer dollars are used to fund endeavors by religious organizations?

2) Can I get a military defense voucher?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #78 of 119
12/14/07 at 3:49pm
Secular endeavors by religious organizations?

Plenty.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #79 of 119
12/14/07 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

1) Are there any examples out there where taxpayer dollars are used to fund endeavors by religious organizations?

I have an idea. For everyone that's concerned about how "taxpayer dollars" are spent, why don't you agree to this plan:

1. You get back your "taxpayer dollars" and I get back mine.
2. We each choose the things we want to fund based upon our own reasons, values and judgments.

How does that sound?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 119
12/14/07 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post


How does that sound?

Sounds horribly unpatriotic.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Barrack Obama is awesome.