Kerry on Campus

if he accepts questions from the audience, ask this question-

"what's your stance on the continual invasion of american citizen's privacy by the federal government, as per the patriot act and CAPPS II?"

or

"How do you feel about the abuse of patents in america that are overbroad and limit intellectual and are aimed at limiting free expression and innovation, as per Digital Rights Management (DRM) and in specific cases such as US v. ElcomSoft & Sklyarov FAQ and The DVD Copy Control Association (DVD-CCA) lawsuits over DeCSS software?"

if not, just sit back and post back after he speaks, i'd like to hear your impression of him.

ask him if he likes bio-dome

[QUOTE=disx]ask him if he likes bio-dome[/QUOTE]

the movie?

No, the breakfast cereal. Simply ask, "Fire bad?"

Well, I wasn't able to make it today b/c apparently you need a ticket to get inside, and that I did not have, and I was too lazy cuz I had an 8am midterm to worry about.

But, my school is covered with police all over the place, and I couldnt even get into my office, I had to like sneak into my work because almost every entrance was blocked off, and most of it still is, and heaven forbid I try to walk past those yellow police tapes. I had like 3 big Guards come running up to me to halt me. I'm like 5'2" 115lbs, I get blown off the sidewalk by gusts of wind, what the hell am I going to do to John Kerry?

Anyway, his presence here has caused nothing but headaches for all my co-workers (esp the catering staff cuz Kerry and his troop are very picky) and now all these hippy politicans are polluting my once deserted campus with political lets make love guitar songs and whatnot.

Sorry guys, I couldnt ask your questions. I dont think it was open forum anyway. He was just up there babbling for an hour not letting me and co-workers do our work for like 3 hours of the day. not that its a bad thing, we just get paid to sit here and twiddle our thumbs, but it is really boring and inconvenient.

So that is impression of John Kerry, a paranoid politican who surrounds himself with picky eaters.

[QUOTE=Manderley]John Kerry is going to be on my college campus in 2 days.

I haven't really kept up on the whole presidential campaign, so I figure I might as well go just to see what he has to say.

I'm sure it will be boring though.[/QUOTE]

So dull I didn't even know I'd missed it until I saw it on the Cult.

Come November, Kerry or Bush will win, the rest of us lose. End of story.

VOTE NOT BUSH and we should all win.

[QUOTE=xxxstupidmansuit]VOTE NOT BUSH and we should all win.[/QUOTE]
I'm no fan of Bush, but Kerry's as bad, if not worse. You've got to get into third party candidates before you have a chance at getting anything appreciably better than a random pick of registered sex offenders.

It's next to impossible for Kerry to be worse than the band of dinglefucks in charge now.

[QUOTE=Balthazar]It's next to impossible for Kerry to be worse than the band of dinglefucks in charge now.[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. Clinton was worse, so was Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Truman, FDR, Kennedy and Wilson. Slightly better would include Reagan, Coolidge and Hoover, somewhat similar would be W.'s pop, Ford, Ike.

The 19th centry ones no one remembers are probably better than anyone in this century, the ones from the 19th century that are on currency are probably considerably worse on the whole.

Jackson, in particular, was a national disaster. They've talked about putting Reagan on currency, I'd nominate the $20 if they're going to do it, because at least Reagan didn't engineer a genocide that makes Pol Pot look like the Easter Bunny or found the Democratic Party or anything like that.

Explain to me how Clinton was bad. He was probably one of the best presidents we had in awhile. If fucking GW would have listened to Cinton and his adminstration about the terrorists' threat we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. The Clinton adminstration was hot on Al Queda's trail but didn't want to pursue it and leave GW a war/hunt, when he came into office. So, GW and his bitch ass clan of henchmen did nothing with the evidence/leads. Instead they let it sit on the back burner. NOW look at us. If Clinton was in office still, he would have used more discretion on the situation (not send so massive amounts of troops over seas) and would have went after who was RESPONSIBLE. But hey it's tough being president of the United States of America, with all those responsiblities and all?!?!?!??!?

Y BUTT IS SO HUGE-Er!

King Lear: Act Two Scene Four

I hate high school

[QUOTE=xxxstupidmansuit]Explain to me how Clinton was bad.QUOTE]

Taxes and government spending increased on Clinton's watch. He never found a tax hike he was willing to veto, not to mention any spending expansion.

The Branch Davidians, a mass murder by the FBI under very direct supervision of Clinton's Justice Department director.

Jocylen Elders. The answer's in the question.

The reason Clinton apologists site for not doing anything about Bin Laden is that we'd appear to be mad bombers if we bombed Afghanistan while bombing Iraq and Kosovo. If Clinton had any leadership at all, he would have either ignored that criticism or re-prioritized his bomb list after the truck bomb attempt on the Trade Center (not to mention the two African embassy's that I almost lost a friend in).

Is W. an improvemet? Not really, spending is out of control, and his Dad signed the biggest pre-Clinton tax hike plus a lot of bullshit spending bills.

Is Kerry worse? Yep, he's Clinton but more so.

If you're going to be realistic, you've got to get away from the Replublocrats and Depublicans. It's a one party system, as much as the Ba'ath party under Hussein. There is not a branch of the federal government created since reconstruction that can stand up to scrutiny, get rid of it all.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I beg to differ. Clinton was worse, so was Carter, Nixon, LBJ, Truman, FDR, Kennedy and Wilson. Slightly better would include Reagan, Coolidge and Hoover, somewhat similar would be W.'s pop, Ford, Ike.

The 19th centry ones no one remembers are probably better than anyone in this century, the ones from the 19th century that are on currency are probably considerably worse on the whole.

Jackson, in particular, was a national disaster. They've talked about putting Reagan on currency, I'd nominate the $20 if they're going to do it, because at least Reagan didn't engineer a genocide that makes Pol Pot look like the Easter Bunny or found the Democratic Party or anything like that.[/quote]
how stupid is you?

[QUOTE=Chixulub][QUOTE=xxxstupidmansuit]Explain to me how Clinton was bad.QUOTE]

Taxes and government spending increased on Clinton's watch. He never found a tax hike he was willing to veto, not to mention any spending expansion.

The Branch Davidians, a mass murder by the FBI under very direct supervision of Clinton's Justice Department director.

Jocylen Elders. The answer's in the question.

The reason Clinton apologists site for not doing anything about Bin Laden is that we'd appear to be mad bombers if we bombed Afghanistan while bombing Iraq and Kosovo. If Clinton had any leadership at all, he would have either ignored that criticism or re-prioritized his bomb list after the truck bomb attempt on the Trade Center (not to mention the two African embassy's that I almost lost a friend in).

Is W. an improvemet? Not really, spending is out of control, and his Dad signed the biggest pre-Clinton tax hike plus a lot of bullshit spending bills.

Is Kerry worse? Yep, he's Clinton but more so.

If you're going to be realistic, you've got to get away from the Replublocrats and Depublicans. It's a one party system, as much as the Ba'ath party under Hussein. There is not a branch of the federal government created since reconstruction that can stand up to scrutiny, get rid of it all.[/QUOTE]

[I]Get rid of it all.[/I] That's being realistic.

Who..... Nader, [I]please.....[/I] don't waste my time...

Yes, everyone can't agree on everything a president does... but GW's whole fiasco in Iraq... everyones agrees with that being a dumb move... JESUS the whole world pretty much protested that... the WORLD.. not just the US the flippen WORLD... When in history did that ever happen??? Enlighten, me.

[QUOTE=xxxstupidmansuit]Who..... Nader, [I]please.....[/I] don't waste my time...

Yes, everyone can't agree on everything a president does... but GW's whole fiasco in Iraq... everyones agrees with that being a dumb move... JESUS the whole world pretty much protested that... the WORLD.. not just the US the flippen WORLD... When in history did that ever happen??? Enlighten, me.[/QUOTE]
First off, I'm not a Nader guy, I'm a Libertarian. But I'd take Nader, who has actual ideas (even if I think he's wrong about a lot of shit) over a 'real' politician.

As far as the WORLD goes, the most ardent opponents to the Iraq invasion were countries making shady oil-for-food deals. They may have been right for the wrong reasons, but sticking up for Hussein is a little silly, even if the all-out invasion and occupation was bad policy.

Prior to WWII, I don't think we ever bothered asking the world what it thought. Sort of with League of Nations, but not really. We illegally annexed Florida during the War of 1812, we stole much of the Southwest in a war with Mexico, and we've invaded Central- and South-American countries for 200 years without bothering to check world opinion.

We spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, and we spend it well from a standpoint of fighting capability. I'm sure we look scary to a lot of the world. We're the only country that has proven willing to use weapons of mass destruction in warfare, and we have a Pres who claims we're not an imperial power and cites Japan and Germany as examples of how we're not (while we still, for all intents and purposes, occupy those countries militarily).

But comparing modern Presidents in terms of pros and cons is like trying to decide on a method of suicide, you're dead in the end no matter what. Clinton had Kosovo (and Iraq, we bombed them pretty regularly in the late 90's). Bush had Somalia and the first Gulf War, etc.

Reagan never consulted the WORLD about bombing Quadafi (and that asshole has been pretty quiet ever since), invading Grenada, etc.

The biggest military action that gets no press coverage right now is our activities in Colombia, which we don't even consult ourselves about, let alone the WORLD.

I used to think that isolationism was a weakness in my party's platform, but it seems more sensible as time goes by. Afghanistan I can see the point of, but the real reason we rolled on Iraq is probably none of the explanations that have been offered.

A friend of mine who's career military retired and now trains 'freedom fighters' in some of the more interesting areas of the world, has a very paranoid but plausible theory that we had intelligence that Israel was ready to move on Iraq, and that we went to avoid the fallout (political and nuclear) that would arise out of that. Even if Iraq didn't have nukes (which was not obvious prior to the war, probably because Saddam didn't want his neighbors to think he didn't have them), It wouldn't be inconceivable that Pakistan or another Islamist government might go nuclear on Israel if they picked another fight in the Middle East (like they did in Lebanon in the 80's). And since Israel is nuclear power, that ups the ante considerably.

So who knows, maybe my friend is right and we invaded Iraq as an alternative to a third world war with regional nuclear flare-ups and the total destabilization of the majority of OPEC's oil supply.

Such a reason would never get a public airing, not at the time. Maybe 50 years later when everyone responsible is dead.

You're quite possibly the first ever Libertarian who likes the current president of hell (Reagan).

I think Libertarians are as idealistic as the Communists. They have some nice ideas, but they don't take human nature into account.

I'd agree that Libertarians are as idealistic as Communists, but Communism tries to reinvent man in the image of the revolutionary. Asking epople to act against their own economic self interest never works.

The Libertarians are one of the few political parties that does not believe that any government, including one of Libertarians, knows better than you what you should do with your life.

There's no government like no government.

why are you arguing with yourself

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I'd agree that Libertarians are as idealistic as Communists, but Communism tries to reinvent man in the image of the revolutionary. Asking epople to act against their own economic self interest never works.

The Libertarians are one of the few political parties that does not believe that any government, including one of Libertarians, knows better than you what you should do with your life.

There's no government like no government.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever spent time in a third world country? I have, and I think that no government has got to suck. The average person just does not give enough of a shit to take it upon him- or herself to make sure that companies don't fuck up the environment and shit. After watching deregulation of airlines, phone companies, and electric companies, I have got to say that deregulation is highly overrated, or at least it isn't the wonderful panacea that the libertarians would have us think that it is.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Taxes and government spending increased on Clinton's watch. He never found a tax hike he was willing to veto, not to mention any spending expansion.[/QUOTE]

No shit, that's how you fix a devastated economy (I guess you forgot that the government was in a deficit that was worsening each year under Reagan and Bush - who you idiotically call better than Clinton), by raising taxes and increasing spending. Duh.
And there were few tax hikes sent his way by the Republican Congress he had to deal with for 6 years, but then you already knew that, right?

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Jocylen Elders. The answer's in the question.[/QUOTE]
That isn't a question. Pillock. Are you referring to his appointment of her, or removing her from her position?

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Is Kerry worse? Yep, he's Clinton but more so.[/QUOTE]
You mean he'll turn our crippling deficit into an all-time record surplus and improve our (poor) relations with the rest of the world? Yeah, what a nightmare that would be.
You're a very, very stupid person to even entertain the idea that someone could be more incompetent than George Bush's Son.
He's turned a record surplus into a record deficit in less than 4 years and has pissed off half of our allies, turning worldwide sympathy to nearly-worldwide contempt. You think Sen. Kerry could somehow top this?

Please, for the love of God, stay out of political discussions. You don't know anything about anything.

oyeh :cool:

Someone's gotsta do the schooling. Fucking Libertarians are worse than Republicans. Back in the day we'd just call them anarchists with delusions of grandeur, flick our Camels at them and be done with it; no cutesy name required.

good answer ozy. a-on-the-nose about the tax hikes and the spending. i do remember when bush propsed the tax cut and the family tax break. sure it was an extra $300 in my pocket, but at the expense of the economy. fact is clinton was ok in some areas, and not in others. he was definately an improvement over dubya, lewinsky or not.

kerry or bush, neither one i'd want to choose. after talkign with some of the other posters here, and some friends/educated aquaintences, the more i am leaning toward throwing my single vote (despite how i despise the american presidential voting system) toward nadar.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]good answer ozy. a-on-the-nose about the tax hikes and the spending. i do remember when bush propsed the tax cut and the family tax break. sure it was an extra $300 in my pocket, but at the expense of the economy. fact is clinton was ok in some areas, and not in others. he was definately an improvement over dubya, lewinsky or not.

kerry or bush, neither one i'd want to choose. after talkign with some of the other posters here, and some friends/educated aquaintences, the more i am leaning toward throwing my single vote (despite how i despise the american presidential voting system) toward nadar.[/QUOTE]

My wife said we might as well put the $300 in the bank, 'cause we'll be paying it back with interest sooner or later. It's part of the Republican / Democrat formula. The Reps throw the money to the rich people and go into defecit and everybody has a party, then the Dems get to be the bad guys when they try to clean it up, so everybody turns back to the Reps and says fuck the Dems, it's one big fucking vicious cycle and it never stops.

The electoral college is still around because the Democrats and Republicans abuse it to their advantage, and it makes it just about impossible for any other party to have a chance in hell at the presidential election.

On the Nader thing, one of two assholes is going to win, and I'm sure as hell not voting for Bush. I'd rather be pragmatic and vote for Kerry than have another 4 yrs of Bush while no one gives a fuck about the "statement" that I made by voting for Nader.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]...On the Nader thing, one of two assholes is going to win, and I'm sure as hell not voting for Bush. I'd rather be pragmatic and vote for Kerry than have another 4 yrs of Bush while no one gives a fuck about the "statement" that I made by voting for Nader.[/QUOTE]
the way it was explained to me, and it's true enough (did a little research) the only way you're going to break the 2 party system, and finally being to have more than just 2 "real" choices on the ballot is if you vote for a third party. read what nadar is saying, he really is purposing the things i essentially agree with. so by voting for nadar you can help break the 2 party system, while effectively exercising your right not to have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias]Someone's gotsta do the schooling. Fucking Libertarians are worse than Republicans. Back in the day we'd just call them anarchists with delusions of grandeur, flick our Camels at them and be done with it; no cutesy name required.[/QUOTE]

Word. I think you have to have grown up priviledged to think that Libertarianism could work. Take garbage collection, for example. In middle class and wealthier neighborhoods, it would be no problem because people would set up a home owner's association or some other system to take care of it because they got the money to do it and they expect a certain level of cleanliness.

However, if you go to the inner city, or other poor areas--say like this is exactly how things are in Santo Domingo, the capital city of the Dominican Republic--and the government doesn't step in on garbage collection, and there aren't any laws about littering or they're just not enforced, here's what you get: Big steaming heaps of rotten, rat infested garbage. Is there any public outcry? Fuck no, people get used to it, and they have bigger fish to fry like getting their basic needs met like food and shelter.

The Libertarian attitude seems to be that if you're poor, it's your own goddamn fault, so fuck you and quit whining and get a job already. Welfare is very problematic, but just getting rid of it altogether isn't the answer either.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]Word. I think you have to have grown up priviledged to think that Libertarianism could work. Take garbage collection, for example. In middle class and wealthier neighborhoods, it would be no problem because people would set up a home owner's association or some other system to take care of it because they got the money to do it and they expect a certain level of cleanliness.

However, if you go to the inner city, or other poor areas--say like this is exactly how things are in Santo Domingo, the capital city of the Dominican Republic--and the government doesn't step in on garbage collection, and there aren't any laws about littering or they're just not enforced, here's what you get: Big steaming heaps of rotten, rat infested garbage. Is there any public outcry? Fuck no, people get used to it, and they have bigger fish to fry like getting their basic needs met like food and shelter.

The Libertarian attitude seems to be that if you're poor, it's your own goddamn fault, so fuck you and quit whining and get a job already. Welfare is very problematic, but just getting rid of it altogether isn't the answer either.[/QUOTE]
yea, i've seen what you mean about the garbage, and it's not something anyone wants to waste their time on, unless they're getting paid for it (as most US cities enjoy a fair cost of waste removal).

as for welfare, it is a very very flawed system. your'e right, we can't just remove it, especially since it's been inplemented long enough for generations to become dependant on the system. what needs to be done with it is slight adjustments here and there, continually over the next X amount of years until it's a completely new system. it needs to be phased out, or upgraded to the point where it's not recognizable.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]Have you ever spent time in a third world country? I have, and I think that no government has got to suck. The average person just does not give enough of a shit to take it upon him- or herself to make sure that companies don't fuck up the environment and shit. After watching deregulation of airlines, phone companies, and electric companies, I have got to say that deregulation is highly overrated, or at least it isn't the wonderful panacea that the libertarians would have us think that it is.[/QUOTE]

Okay, fair to point out I've not been out of the country, but I'm not ignorant of how fucked up a lot of the world is. Part of where I think you misapprehend me is in definitions.

Government, as I understand it, is the use of force or fraud to change the behavior of others. A mugger in an alley is a government of one over one. The Mafia is just an alternative government. So when I look at some of the shittier places on earth, much of Africa and South America, some spots in Eastern Europe, most of Aisia and the Middle East, what I see is an excess of government and in many cases civil war, an open conflict between opposing governments.

As P.J. O'Rouke observed, Wal-Mart may sell guns, but they don't have guns.

Libertarians believe that the formal government, granted more or less a monopoly on the use of force, should only be used to counteract all those little governments that would impose their will forcefully or fraudulently. To justify the use of that force, the power of the American government is awesome indeed, you have to be willing to say, "If my Mom or Dad didnt' go along with the law, I'd let the firing squad have them."

Can you say that about regulating airfares or subsidizing Amtrak? Can you say that about posession of pot or cocaine? Can you say that about paying taxes on your income?

Where do you draw the line?

It's an important question that both major parties ignore, hence my allegiance to a third party. And if you haven't asked that question of yourself, what the fuck are you doing in a voting booth? People die based on what those dimpled chads say. They also go to prison in droves, their lives destroyed and their families scarred.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Libertarians believe that the formal government, granted more or less a monopoly on the use of force, should only be used to counteract all those little governments that would impose their will forcefully or fraudulently. To justify the use of that force, the power of the American government is awesome indeed, you have to be willing to say, "If my Mom or Dad didnt' go along with the law, I'd let the firing squad have them."

Can you say that about regulating airfares or subsidizing Amtrak? Can you say that about posession of pot or cocaine? Can you say that about paying taxes on your income?

[B]Where do you draw the line?[/B]

It's an important question that both major parties ignore, hence my allegiance to a third party. And if you haven't asked that question of yourself, what the fuck are you doing in a voting booth? People die based on what those dimpled chads say. They also go to prison in droves, their lives destroyed and their families scarred.[/QUOTE]
"Where do you draw the line?" is probably THE question that no candidate is really willing to answer. if you were to ask me that question, i'm sure i could ramble on for a good week or so and still not end up talking about a tenth of what needs to be addressed. of course, anymore, the candidated shouldn't be answering that question, because it would mean a complete overhaul of our government, which we're not able to deal with right now. rather, we should be asking them "which lines are you willing to draw back?" (as government regulation becomes tighter and tighter) "which lines are you willing to not deal with right now?" (as legislation that has little to no impact keeps on getting passed) and "which lines are you willing to puch forwards with?" (as certain government areas still need that push - example - welfare).

but to be fair to the government, it's not ALL that bad. you say people de/go to prison based on what they say. in part that's true, but you also have to realize that much of what's been established is truly necessary. we need laws that would send persons to prison, we need laws that would (in some instances) send our troops out to possibly die for a reason. without these laws our society would crumble under it's own greed/ignorance/apathy/whatever. many laws are stupid and pointless, many laws cause more trouble than they solve, but on the same hand, i would go so far as to say, a vast majority of laws serve to provide guidelines, to protect, to effectivly regulate segments that need regulation. that's why despite all the bitching i do at the government on certain areas, i still live here. our government may be in need of some fixing, but it's far from broken.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]"Where do you draw the line?" is probably THE question that no candidate is really willing to answer. if you were to ask me that question, i'm sure i could ramble on for a good week or so and still not end up talking about a tenth of what needs to be addressed. of course, anymore, the candidated shouldn't be answering that question, because it would mean a complete overhaul of our government, which we're not able to deal with right now. rather, we should be asking them "which lines are you willing to draw back?" (as government regulation becomes tighter and tighter) "which lines are you willing to not deal with right now?" (as legislation that has little to no impact keeps on getting passed) and "which lines are you willing to puch forwards with?" (as certain government areas still need that push - example - welfare).

but to be fair to the government, it's not ALL that bad. you say people de/go to prison based on what they say. in part that's true, but you also have to realize that much of what's been established is truly necessary. we need laws that would send persons to prison, we need laws that would (in some instances) send our troops out to possibly die for a reason. without these laws our society would crumble under it's own greed/ignorance/apathy/whatever. many laws are stupid and pointless, many laws cause more trouble than they solve, but on the same hand, i would go so far as to say, a vast majority of laws serve to provide guidelines, to protect, to effectivly regulate segments that need regulation. that's why despite all the bitching i do at the government on certain areas, i still live here. our government may be in need of some fixing, but it's far from broken.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be a Libertarian if I thought there was no such thing as a decent government. That's my idealism, that government can possibly be restrained from being an entirely destructive force.

600,000 people a year go to prison for non-violent drug offences, and both parties, inhaled or un-inhaled, just shrug their shoulders and build more prisons. Yes, there are dangerous people out there, but we parole violent felons to make room for mandatory sentencing cases in the drug war while maintaining prison as a growth industry.

Regulation? It's bad enough the impact the CEO of a Fortune 500 company can have with a bad decision. I may distrust corporate America, but I distrust the government more, and the more centralized the authority, the worse.

Realistically, if we simply quit hiring federal employees and allowed retirements/resignations to stand, filling in positions vacated by moving people around, we could reduct the size of the Federal government by around 35% in four years. Corporations do that kind of thing all the time, because they have to balance their books to survive.

I would venture that, with few exceptions, the powers of the federal government could be pared back to 1870 levels without harm. That means no cabinet positions or regulatory agencies that weren't already in place at the time of Reconstruction.

The mainstream political parties just bicker about how to make Leviathan fatter, hungrier and meaner.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I may distrust corporate America, but I distrust the government more[/QUOTE]
That's your fatal weakness. You can't vote out corporate vermin, but you can vote out polticians. Politicians care about power, corporate swine about money. You can sometimes do good things in the grab for power, but nothing good ever comes out of a lust for money.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias]That's your fatal weakness. You can't vote out corporate vermin, but you can vote out polticians. Politicians care about power, corporate swine about money. You can sometimes do good things in the grab for power, but nothing good ever comes out of a lust for money.[/QUOTE]
Money and power are the same thing, really. Politicians only get voted out to be replaced by other politicians.

You can vote out a business, you shop elsewhere, the democracy of dollars. Corporate dynasties are not indefinite, especially in decentralized industries that have not suffered from being granted government protected monopoly status and heavy regulation. The gambling industry would be much less destructive if it weren't an oligarchy of businesses that have an in with the government officials that are life and death to a casino. Without all that regulation to 'protect' people from themselves, gaming would be the sort of thing you might find in the back room of any bar, not huge money magnets that invade a neighborhood with fake riverboats, suck out the local businesses and replace them with shylocks and pawn shops.

Which is why the federal government needs to be stripped of all the powers it has assumed in the past 150 or so years, because if you take those things down to state, county, city level, you've got a fighting chance to have some accountability. The smaller the better.

A case in point, the worst school districts in a city are also usually the biggest. $500 million budgets attract the sort of power-hungry assholes you don't want anywhere near education. A school district, if you're even going to have public schools, should never be allowed to be more than a high school and its tributaries.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Which is why the federal government needs to be stripped of all the powers it has assumed in the past 150 or so years, because if you take those things down to state, county, city level, you've got a fighting chance to have some accountability. The smaller the better.
besides being impossible and completely destructive to america as a whole, i think that's probably the least plausable idea i've ever heard. you can't just revoke things that have been in place for the past 150 years, you wouldn't even be able to do the same with laws that are only 20 years old. the whole legal system would topple, bringing every last government and private organization with them. i'm not one for trying out anarchy. there are benefits to organization, especially within a government.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]besides being impossible and completely destructive to america as a whole, i think that's probably the least plausable idea i've ever heard. you can't just revoke things that have been in place for the past 150 years, you wouldn't even be able to do the same with laws that are only 20 years old. the whole legal system would topple, bringing every last government and private organization with them. i'm not one for trying out anarchy. there are benefits to organization, especially within a government.

i've seen this too much for me to argue with it. if you need examples check out ohio's public schooling system. the ones receiving the largest funding are the ones now doing the worst. you can't just throw money at an educational system to repair it. that's probably one of the worst things that you can do. i was reading an interesting article about magnet schools locally. it seems they're replacing many of the public schools and most of the parochial schools. i've been in them, watched, and read up on them. they are proof that better things can happen with "free" education.[/QUOTE]
Arguing for the status quo on the basis that the system would collapse, well, maybe it's not so bad if it does. One of my favorite reads is the Declaration of Independence. I'm not one for violent revolution, not because of pacifism, but because, pragmatically, it has a poor track record of producing anything better than what it tears down.

On the school front, you're right, there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to education dollars. Little tiny metal buildings run by religious fanatics routinely kick the ass of Kansas City, Missouri public schools (even under a very expensive court mandated magnet system). Billions have been wasted to not educate hundreds of thousands of kids while parents who care and can find a way to come up with tuition put their kids in private schools that sometimes get the job done on as little as $2500 per student.

But the whole concept of universal compulsory public education is part of the problem. The assumption today is that it's the state's responsibility to educate your kids. That's a function of parenting. Schools can be a good way of getting it done, but they need to be schools the parents choose, and the parents need to have some control. Yeah, I know there are parents who don't give a damn, they don't put pressure on administrators and teachers. The parents who give a damn are the ones that make a school, public or private, work. I've seen situations where six or seven parents have been able to force a high school with a thousand students to adopt a more rigorous math curriculum. Nothing's ever going to guarantee great outcomes across the board, but the kids who were motivated got a better math education out of that.

And no one in the Department of Education is ever going to do what that handful of parents did. For that matter, I don't think a case can be made that education in America has gotten better since we got a Federal Department of Education. That's why I say, send the department pink slips and be done with it. Make them go out into the private sector and earn honest livings.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]Arguing for the status quo on the basis that the system would collapse, well, maybe it's not so bad if it does. One of my favorite reads is the Declaration of Independence. I'm not one for violent revolution, not because of pacifism, but because, pragmatically, it has a poor track record of producing anything better than what it tears down.
i guess what i'm saying here is we can undo what has been done already, there's no reason for toppling our current form of government. it just needs updating, and revoking legislations that have been in place, even for a small amount of time, has severe reprecussions. as long as people are willing to participate in their governmental process, i have hope for our country.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]
sure, some of the choices do cost a bit, but there are ways to get around that cost. [/QUOTE]

Either you're stupid or funny, I don't know. Maybe you know, are you stupid or funny??

[QUOTE=Lethargica]Either you're stupid or funny, I don't know. Maybe you know, are you stupid or funny??[/QUOTE]
my statement is completely accurate. care to prove otherwise?