Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'M ALL FOR ELIMINATING USELESS AGENCIES! I send my kid to private school because my local public stinks. I'm not pro-DoEd.
But I don't think it's wrong to expect something more concise then an anti-Federal intervention rant for a reason WHY.
When a student does a book report, they can't just hand in a paper that says "This sucks." They have to form some thoughts and tell us WHY it sucks. That's how analytical thinking works.
Don't just tell me the agency is "bad." Tell me WHY it's "bad."
Show how they've misused or misappropriated money.
Show specific programs they've implemented that stink.
Then show how those programs haven't worked.
Show me where they've prevented learning.
Show me how they are holding back our kids.
Show me the roadblocks they've put up and show me the damage they've caused.
Then, show me how Education WILL work once the program is gone.
Show me how you expect states to conduct their business post Federal intervention.
Show me your plan for a better education for my kids.
You say it's a "fact" that it doesn't work. If the answers are so obvious, then surely these candidates can have their people put together a well reasoned report in a few hours (as I can do for issues with my local school). It's not rocket science.
How about the simple fact that the federal government was never given any authority or power in regard to education? Or do you consider it a good thing that the federal government usurps powers they were never granted away from the States?
One benefit your children will gain by abolishing the Department of Education is the comprehension that the power of the federal government is limited by the US Constitution. Which is more than you have now.
The agencies for education should be eliminated. Education only makes elitists of ordinary American kids. Elitists are bad.
for every elitist it creates, it creates a thousand donkeys whose obvious skills for something other than the rubbish they teach at school, go overlooked. this leads to miserable kids whose only alternatives in life are minimum wage or crime
While we cannot observe evolution at a large scale with most animals (only gradual variations from a few several generations) since it takes thousands or even millions of years, we have observed viruses and bacteria evolving. Other things that have lead to the theory involve fossil records and genetic research. I'm surprised you haven't researched this yourself most people who are against evolution try to look up some of the research on google in order to get an idea of what it's about in an attempt to debunk it.
Yet that is a correlative assessment and it does not imply causation. There are many "holes" in the position and the process of science is not about building enough support to establish it as conclusive, but finding any single element to which shows it is not and there are plenty of these elements within that position. If you can not explain every divergence in such a position, then you have not shown the position to be valid.
This is the danger of establishing such grounds and disregarding the requirements of the scientific method and a major point of contention between traditional science and those of unverified theoretical means.
I don't argue "against" evolution, I simply asked if it is proven according to the scientific method.
Good. AX the Department of education! Education is a STATE'S issue, the federal government has no business sticking their noses into it, NOR, do they have any control over it.
If you carefully read the constitution, (yeah, I know silly me), you will find nothing in it's charter that allows for a Department of Education. Axe the whole group, take the money already allotted for it on this year's budget, , and divvy it up between the states for their schools, and then take it totally out of the next year's budget.
Eliminating Public Education has been on the RWA's agenda for years. The idea is to create an even more ignorant population that will not be able to tell when it is being hoodwinked by the RW as well as to create an even larger and more docil labor force. Then there is the observation that a non religious based education system creates critics of the Theology imposed by the Rulers.
Nobody wants to eliminate public education.
Reading is fundamental, greg!
In fact, the main people that are being effected by the failing state of education in America are minorities....mostly ones who vote for dems.
It all fits in with their agenda of keeping their constituency ignorant.
Otherwise, they would be looking for a way to fix it.
We conservatives are the ones who have read and understand the Constitution.
Remember the stink that the left put up when the conservatives wanted to read the Constitution before the start of the last congress?
Why would that be, greg?
The Constitution is to the left as Holy Water is to the devil.
Evolution IS a fact and it is explained by the scientific Theory of Evolution.
So it should be easy to explain how its discovery of such a fact is obtained through the steps of the scientific method. You don't need to go into details, just list the basic finds in each process and how it comes to that conclusion.
Heck, if you want, what portions are tested, verified and validated, and replicated as per the scientific methods process?
Where did you get this idea that Evolution is not a fact?
Are you one of those who think Evolution is "just" a "theory"? LOL.
Again, please show according to the scientific method how the theory of evolution is tested, verified/validated, and replicated according to the scientific method.
Remember, all divergence to the initial hypothesis must be fully explained. There can be no loose correlations or unexplained deviation. That is, properly use the scientific method to establish such to a conclusion that has no elements to which it fails.
The only thing I came come up with is, Bachmann wants to ax anything she doesn't understand. Come to think of it, she doesn't understand much of anything.
You're right bob.
Other than having dual law degrees, being a successful politician, a successful business woman, having a great understanding of The Constitution, raising 5 of her own children and 23 foster children, she's a loser.
Show me one liberal female politician with THAT resume', bob.
Well, broadly speaking, the government has reasons for "forcing" multiculturalism...to use your characterization of it. First of all, like I outlined in my previous post, the social contract theory evident in states' (and the federal Constitution) stipulates that government maximize individuals' access to opportunity and for the legal structure to be based on equality before the law. Social contract theory of the Lockean or Hobbesian vein is that nations are guided by laws rather than arbitrary emotions from one all powerful leader or all powerful group of leaders (as in royals or an aristocracy). With that in mind, both state and federal government have an interest in multiculturalism because we are a nation of laws, guided by principles, which is social contract theory (the idea that people relinquish some of their autonomy to the state in exchange for guarantees of life, liberty, and property). I mean face it, as a nation, both state governments, and the federal government, has guaranteed equal application of the social contract theory in a very unequal way. So-called progressives (both of the liberal and conservative vein) have attempted to mitigate the unequal application of American jurisprudence, as well as the unequal opportunities erected by both state-level (and federal level) overlords...as well as obstacles to full participation in society by the private sector.
Secondly, state and federal governments have a duty to protect its people. To do this equitably before the law these governmental systems must inculcate multiculturalism. Otherwise, state and the feds would have to claim that there are degrees of citizenship (in which certain groups are preferred over others), or other degrees of participation in this society that are inherently unequal (both of which would violate social contract theoretical principles). In short, to protect Americans, the government (all levels) must foster mulitculturalism because Americans must work together for the aid of the public good. Historical examples abound of how this has not been the case in American society -- and inequal opportunity of education has been one way in which a variety of people have tried to equalize the playing field (because educational opportunity translates into later economic opportunity -- and the more economic backing one has enables them to affect the political process -- I'm thinking here of money to influence political candidates as one such example).
That's why government must work to make a multicultural society, otherwise, and this has happened, certain people would be marginalized.
multiculturalism is constitutional. bwahahahahaha. that is the most ridiculous argument i have heard in a while, but luckily for you it is a view held dear by most power brokers and the billions who have been indoctrinated by their spawn. the dept of education will continue to grow, its budgets will go cosmic and little by little they will usurp more power from parents and families. education won't improve.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
