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.
If you need a reason look at the current education system bases on central planning at a federal level screwing up the local level where teachers and parents and local voters and local taxes go.
PS if you think the department of education means no public schools or teach cuts or salary cuts, or all those other democrat union loving stuff. Please dont post or waste our time DO SOME RESEARCH!
I'm curious as to what your credentials are to speak on this subject with such conviction? You use some slick terminology but I've yet to see any substance in your opinion other than putting the onus on the poster's of this forum to provide you with a detailed explanation of how evolution conforms to the scientific method.
Ad hominen.
Academic achievement does not invalidate the strength of an argument. Your question serves no purpose other than to disregard the individual rather than attending to the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
Are we not allowed to say the universe is 13 billion years old or the closest star is 4 light years away (or whatever) without being able to speak in great detail on the matter?
Depends on if you are stating such as fact, or a speculation. Some things can be validated and verified properly, others are speculation based on untested means. Talking about either is fine, though establishing either as fact requires more than speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbird82
Again I ask, why this particular subject? Why not black holes or big bang or geology of earth, etc?
Are they stated as fact when they are not properly established as such? If not, I have no problems with them. If they are stated as theories without means of validation, that accepts that the position is not verified to a conclusion, though may be supported to such an assumption establishing it as the "best guess" based on what is understood.
As I said, I have no problems with anything being taught or discussed, simply the conclusions one would make when they are not properly supported as such.
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.
While I wholeheartedly agree with every you said, there is one small irony that needs to be pointed out. Representative Bachmann is currently a member of the House of Representatives, which has the power to abolish the Department of Education. The irony is that she is currently running for President, who does not have the power to abolish the Department of Education.
The GOP controlled House can completely defund and abolish the Department of Education next fiscal year, if they chose to do so. However, getting that portion of the budget past the Democrat controlled Senate unamended would be virtually impossible. Assuming the impossible happened, it would still be vetoed by Obama.
Academic achievement does not invalidate the strength of an argument. Your question serves no purpose other than to disregard the individual rather than attending to the argument.
Depends on if you are stating such as fact, or a speculation. Some things can be validated and verified properly, others are speculation based on untested means. Talking about either is fine, though establishing either as fact requires more than speculation.
Are they stated as fact when they are not properly established as such? If not, I have no problems with them. If they are stated as theories without means of validation, that accepts that the position is not verified to a conclusion, though may be supported to such an assumption establishing it as the "best guess" based on what is understood.
As I said, I have no problems with anything being taught or discussed, simply the conclusions one would make when they are not properly supported as such.
Not sure how it is an ad hominem. I never made any such statement that a certain level of academic achievement was necessary. Merely wondering exactly where your strong conviction arises from on the subject of evolution whether it be hours upon hours of digging through websites, studies in school, research journals, whatever.
I've yet to hear exactly how or why the subject isn't a valid theory, but strawman arguments where you expect posters on a political message board to be able to detail exactly how evolution (in the broadest sense) conforms to the scientific method.
Your attempt at a gotcha is again one giant fallacy as if we must all be an authoritative source on a subject for it to be valid.
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.
Why do you lefties hate The Constitution bob?
alphamale, i normally agree with you, and on the dept of education i'm behind bachmann 1000%. bachmann however is no constitutionalist. she has no problem with the federal war on drugs, federal marriage, patriot act which effectively guts the 4th, tsa, dhs, etc.
bachmann like obama, bush, clinton and perry is a political animal. she will say and do anything if she thought it would get her votes. she bleats on and on about abortion, and the dept of education, two areas where she knows she would never be able to change unless the states re asserted their power. like most politicians and religious leaders, she picks and chooses verses from the constitution and bible which she agrees with and the rest is left behind
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.
Why do you lefties hate The Constitution bob?
Oh,oh! Red flag! Dual law degrees? That means book lernin'. Why should America trust anyone with one law degree, much less with dual law degrees? America wants people with common sense instead of education. They're trustworthy.
Oh,oh! Red flag! Dual law degrees? That means book lernin'. Why should America trust anyone with one law degree, much less with dual law degrees? America wants people with common sense instead of education. They're trustworthy.
A big city lawyer went duck hunting. He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence.
As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked the lawyer what he was doing.
The lawyer responded, "I shot a duck and it fell into this field, and now I'm going to retrieve it."
The old farmer replied. "This is my property, and your not coming over here."
The indignant lawyer replied. "I'm one of the best trial lawyers around, and if you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything that you own.
The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we do things in these parts. We settle small disagreements like this, with the Three Kick Rule."
The lawyer asked, "What is the Three Kick Rule?"
The farmer replied, "Well, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times, and so on, back and forth until someone gives up."
The lawyer quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the local custom.
The old farmer slowly gets down from the tractor and walked up to the city fella. His first kick planted the toe of his heavy work boot into the lawyer's groin, which dropped him to his knees.
His second kick nearly ripped the nose off his face.
The lawyer was flat on his belly, when the farmer's third kick to a kidney nearly causing him to give up, but didn't.
The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet and said, "Okay, now it's my turn."
The old farmer smiled and said,
"Naw, I give up, You can keep the duck!"
Having a dual law degree just makes a lawyer that much
more asinine
you obviously believe that the dept of education works or can work so whatever anyone says to you to the contrary is a waste of their time.
i just want to know, how much more do you think should be spent on education? i've heard figures between $5000 and $20000 is spent per student at the county,state and federal level. perhaps we should spend $50k per student? how would you pay for all this? tax the rich more? borrow more like we've been doing to finance our overspending?
what specifically would you try to make the dept of edu work? it is after all fantastic if we get it right because it will benefit all the kids in this country. whast worries me with federal depts is when they get it wrong, they end up messing up all the kids in the country.
bachmann is a status quo neocon idiot, of that there can be little doubt, but perhaps she might be concerned with that last point i made. maybe if each state had their own dept of education, and they got it wrong, it would only affect kids in that state. when they got things right some states might learn from it. perhaps it might be easier to innovate and try different things the state level. some states might even further delegate education down to the counties.
You obviously did not bother to read through the earlier thread where I lend my thoughts on the elimination of the Dept. of Education.
I wouldn't have been so quick to be judgmental from just gleaning information from a few words in my post.
This digresses from the subject a bit; but I was struck by something in your argument. It seems to me that while you go on about equal opportunity and equality, that our federal government - while perhaps well-intentioned - has done just the opposite in imposing what we all know as quotas. That is, the fed government mandates to state governments that they must admit X percentage of minority students to their law school or whatever. So, while you talk about a social contract, it is really governmental mandate and control. If the argument is, "Well, this is to cure past ills, or to ensure that things are fair going forward; then, at what point are the tables balanced? And who decides they are balanced? And, by what formula or criteria, is it decided that things are fair and equal? That is not a social contract, but arbitrary social engineering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson
Well I guess it depends on what type of society you want to live in -- one that is multicultural and there are equal opportunities as guaranteed through the social contract (and U.S. Constitution, as well as many state constitutions), or you want to live only among your kind.
The reason I have trouble with institutionalized discrimination is because the U.S. Constitution guarantees otherwise. If Americans don't like these guarantees of equal opportunity and equality before the law, then the Constitution should be amended to say that certain privileged people have the right...the constitutional right...to discriminate against people however they deem fit.
The way you use the term "discrimination" is on a personal level and it's entirely agreeable. Yet when you factor in a governmental apparatus designed to provide equal access, then "discrimination" takes on a whole host of other implications.
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.
They're trustworthy.
