RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions?

RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Marc2b -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 8:16:42 AM)
quote: The state's share from the Feds get cut. They have to have so much seat time! That is actually the terminology. No learning involved here...just seat time. So they allow very little (and I mean very lttle) ...too bad for you if yours gets appendecitis and has to be in the hospital for surgery and then a recoup time for a few days at home. Your time is up! Best be healthy for the rest of the year! I got a call from the elementary school principal, even though I had already registered with the county as a home schooler. I fear she was more concerend that she had lost funding for a student than she was that MY UM was not appearing for the 5th grade! Ah well.... When one of my nieces suffered a traumatic experience and emotional and psychological problems as a result, we decided to pull her out of school and home school her for a time. While home schooling in legal in New York you have to jump through a enormous number of hoops to do so. The local school district opposed us every step of the way (to the point that one board member’s name is now synonymous in our family with the phrase "heartless bitch"). We had to hire a lawyer who specializes in battling the school system. It was from her that we first heard the term "seat time." I remember her telling my sister, "you have to understand, they don’t give a shit about your daughter. Their only concern is the money." She was a great lawyer though who won through for us (watching her and the Heartless Bitch go at it was like watching a legal version of Ripley vs. the Alien). The school district loathes her and is afraid of her. When we told them who we had hired I swear they reacted like vampires to a crucifix. It was great. I just wish we had a picture of Heartless Bitch’s face when we told her – as a keepsake, you understand.

Marc2b -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 8:19:00 AM)
quote: I wish the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would disband the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and that my own state would abolish COMPULSORY EDUCATION for children over the age of 12. Me too, but I would go one step further and abolish compulsory education alltogether.

DesertRat -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 8:26:43 AM)
Me too. How much education must one have to drop a basket of fried potatos into a deep fryer? I like your idea. It would harm the U.S. and hasten our rush to the bottom of the cesspool. I like it! Bob

Marc2b -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 8:29:09 AM)
quote: .......i'm not going to argue, but i am curious....why would you think such a thing? Speaking for myself... first, the Department of Education’s very existence is illegal. The Constitution makes it clear that the Federal government only has those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The Constitution does not even mention education, therefore it is a matter, at most, for the States. Uncle Sam is not supposed to have any say in it. As for why education should not be compulsory, education is not a one size fits all matter. Different people have different beliefs, and educational needs (depending on intelligence level, regional job markets, cultural attributes, etc.). I have no problem with a State run education system but if it doesn’t suit the needs of some then they should have the freedom to home school or seek out a private school to their liking.

Alumbrado -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 8:40:52 AM)
Nice try, but that isn't what the US Constitution says...it gives Congress not the states, full power to not only provide for the general welfare but the sole authority to decide what laws implement that welfare (as in laws regarding education). Then it allows anything not specifically given to the federal government, to the states, not the other way around.

Marc2b -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 8:53:34 AM)
quote: Me too. How much education must one have to drop a basket of fried potatos into a deep fryer? I like your idea. It would harm the U.S. and hasten our rush to the bottom of the cesspool. I like it! Considering that we graduate people who can’t even find the U.S. on a map (and it’s not like it’s a little country) I don’t see how it could get much worse. You statement seems to presume that, if given the opportunity, the majority of Americans would not send their children to school or provide for their education in some other fashion. I do not have such a low opinion of Americans. Indeed, escaping the lousy educational system imposed upon them is why so many Americans want to home school – they actually do a better job than the schools systems.

Marc2b -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 9:13:55 AM)
quote: Nice try, but that isn't what the US Constitution says...it gives Congress not the states, full power to not only provide for the general welfare but the sole authority to decide what laws implement that welfare (as in laws regarding education). It does no such thing. The Preamble – which you are referencing – lists the purposes for the Constitution, one of which is to PROMOTE (notice, not ENSURE, which would be impossible) the GENERAL (not the SPECIFIC, which again would be impossible) welfare. The tenth amendment makes it clear where power defaults to: *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.* In other words - if this Constitution doesn't specifically say you can do something, Mister Congressman, then you can't do it! So butt the fuck out! This is, arguably, the most violated section of the Constitution there is. If we were to actually obey it anywhere from half to three quarters of the Federal government would have to be abolished. The overall purpose of the Constitution is to *restrict* the power of government (particularly the Federal government) because the Founders understood that power corrupts. Under your interpretation, the Congress has the power to do *anything* it wants simply by saying that it promotes the general welfare. A Congress that can do anything it wants is the antithesis of the idea of a Republic with separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. Edited to add: Standing by for someone to come in with the bullshit "commerce clause," argument for tyranny.

YesMistressIrish -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 1:30:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Well, there have been some good ideas, and there has been some incredibly goofy shit. All the goofy shit should be immediately adopted as public policy. [;)] .... Abortion: Medical decisions are nobody's goddamn business. Re-legalize Cannabis, ... and opioid painkillers. Eliminate Corporations and all other limited-liability organizational forms. Prohibit lobbying of Congress. Public financing of national-level political campaigns. Healthcare must be not-for-profit. Pharmaceuticals must be not-for-profit. Establish system of Wellness Centers (preventive medicine) Eliminate corporate welfare, which sucks up waaaaaay more taxpayer money than the rightards wet-dream "welfare queens" could ever. Military for defense only; defense of the nation, that is, not Exxon's profits. A serious national transportation network, utilizing such new technologies as Mag-Lev. http://www.gluckman.com/Maglev.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train Proportional representation. .... Free secondary education. Mandatory World History, and high quality educations. Strengthening Workers' Rights. "Apollo"-type program for alternative energy. Revamping of building codes for durability and energy efficiency. High-density multi-use urban planning. National system of urban/community garden plots. Mandatory free inoculation for cervical cancer. Free birth control. For starters. [:D] Thanks! Now my list is much shorter... First: the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. We grow our own organic food, use hemp for crops and materials, raise our own livestock and if you want to eat meat: trained to deal with all the scary, disgusting animal-killing chores. No pesticides, herbicides and all cleaning chemicals used other than those deemed unharmful to life. Highly efficient filtering systems for water, sewage, etc. Code requirement for houses and apartments: Fireplaces, jacuzzi bathtubs, and wrap-around front porches. Every politician must do 2 years of minimum wage, armed services and not just 'wear a cute hat', raise their kids as a single parent, and deal with the total loss of privacy by the system before they could hold any major office. They would also be required to sit in classrooms where there are over 30 students and plenty of special ed. children who take all the attention of a good teacher away from the rest of their students. Abolish trashy fast food joints, install organically grown fast-food chains. Keep the cats in at dusk and dawn, fix the dogs and kitties. Bring back the frogs and birds.... (ok, dreaming now) Make every country pay us back what they owe: Now. Abolish World Banks, global greed. Ha! [;)] Required classes for parents-to-be, sex education classes for youngsters, relationship/communication classes for all and sundry, good manners classes, spelling and grammer...O-wait, that was covered above. Make people pick up their dog's crap, cover our own needs, fix our problems in the US, close the borders, take care of our nut before we force Our Ways onto other societies, abolish Nuclear weapons and go face to face, legalize personal gun ownership and the right to bear arms, get your religion out of our faces and educate our young-uns to be respectful, kind, do their chores, volunteer work for all, everyone pulls their own weight in some way that contributes to the whole. Ummm..... O-yeah: Everyone who moved into CA since 1964 must now go home! [:D]

Hanable -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 5:29:46 PM)
i see that many of u seem to have problems with kids/youngones with respect and responsibility issues. i have problems with adults who have the same problems. ones who wont do anything for them selves becuz they think there entitled becuz they alreayd did there job or put in there time as a parent. id your wondering yeah.. i have issues with my mother right now... but thats a rant for somewhere else. H >:)

YourhandMyAss -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 10:32:00 PM)
so what if your child is horribly deathly ill with something so nasty they should not and can not be out of bed or around any one else and the school knows it but your weeks sick allowance is up , can the school still come after you forthe "truency" of your child?

girlygurl -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 10:38:00 PM)
Opinions are like assholes..... We all have one and they all stink [sm=banana.gif] hee hee girly

YourhandMyAss -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 11:31:20 PM)
My asshole don't stink I just had a bath.

DesertRat -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/14/2008 11:51:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hanable schools no longer about education.. its about how fast and good can u jmp threw these hoops. Yeah, those hoops r a bitch u no?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/15/2008 4:14:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b It does no such thing. The Preamble – which you are referencing – lists the purposes for the Constitution, one of which is to PROMOTE...[snip]...the GENERAL...[snip]...welfare. I snipped your bogus interpretations, sorry. While the preamble does mention the intent of the Constitution it is not part of the Constitution, so technically it could be argued that it carries no force whatever. But Article 1 does have this: "Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..." [Edit: bolded for emphasis., bolding not in the original.] So, try reading it sometime... [8\|]

Marc2b -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/15/2008 7:09:16 AM)
quote: I snipped your bogus interpretations, sorry. Nothing bogus about it. The Founders were intelligent enough to know that it is impossible for government to be all things for all people all the time. That is why they wrote promote the general welfare and not ensure that each and every individual lives a happy, healthy and fulfilled life from the womb (unless, of course the mother decides to abort) to the tomb. quote: While the preamble does mention the intent of the Constitution it is not part of the Constitution, so technically it could be argued that it carries no force whatever. My point exactly. quote: But Article 1 does have this: "Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..." [Edit: bolded for emphasis., bolding not in the original.] So, try reading it sometime... Once again the phrase is general welfare. In other words the good of the country as a whole, not the good of every single individual (a utopian fantasy). If you want accept the notion that this gives the Congress carte blanch to do whatever it wants then don’t bitch when it actually does so. No more bitching about the Patriot Act (stopping terrorism is in the general welfare, is it not?). No more bitching about Congress authorizing the use of force in Iraq because Congress, no doubt, believed it was in the interest of the general welfare. No more bitching about anything. Be a good subject and assume that your betters know what is best for you. Do as you are told. It’s in the interest of the general welfare. Let’s be honest here. People who believe that the phrase general welfare (or the commerce clause) gives the Federal government the power to do whatever it wants are people who are pissed off that those who disagree with them are allowed to disagree with them, that those who live lifestyles they disapprove of are allowed to live such lifestyles. The power of government is needed to shut such people up and put them in their place – to make them conform. It baffles me that the side of the political spectrum that likes to scream "POWER TO THE PEOPLE," objects to actually giving power to the people but prefers to substitute one form of tyranny for another – blithely believing that the new tyrants will be benign parent figures who will make everything okay. While I confess to lacking an endemic memory and therefore cannot recite the Constitution word for word I have read it – but reading it is not enough, you have to understand the political, philosophical, cultural, and historical context in which it was written. It is a document that was designed to restrict the power of government so that it would not run roughshod over people’s rights. Why then would the authors of said document give that government unlimited power?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/15/2008 7:35:07 AM)
Do you realize that the intent of the writers is only one way of interpreting that document? Everything you are saying fails once you realize that the courts have already used more than one mode of interpretation. And your unique interpretation of that document doesn't change several decades of the U.S. being some kind of hybrid socio-economic model that combines social democracy with a republic. The meaning for the term "general welfare" is still up for grabs as the country changes with the times. You're not living in the real world if you think you can turn back the tide on social programs.

kittinSol -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/15/2008 7:44:25 AM)
What I love with this thread is that it has the potential to go on ad infinitum. Everyday someone can come in and post a new controversy. I think it's fantastic.

Evility -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/15/2008 8:58:37 AM)
I believe that fidelity is the responsibility of the married or otherwise spoken for party - not that of the other woman or other man. I believe that mandatory or compulsory voting is an asinine idea. I think I.Q. tests and a minimum score being established before you can vote is a far better idea. I believe that you either submit... or you don't. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a scapegoat.

mnottertail -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/15/2008 9:01:47 AM)
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 1l. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting. Amen. (not me, of course, but it sounds pretty spiffy)

Jeffff -> RE: What are some of your most controversial opinions? (2/15/2008 9:06:50 AM)
Thanks for the plug! The Council Of Nicaea

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875