Hurray for Kansas. A victory for liberals!

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
Gridlock, how great it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

I haven't read this thread yet, so I don't know if it's been pointed out.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a hint for you morans

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time you plan on inpugning the intelligence of half the country, you might want to learn the correct spelling of the insult that you're casting.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read this thread yet, so I don't know if it's been pointed out.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a hint for you morans

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time you plan on inpugning the intelligence of half the country, you might want to learn the correct spelling of the insult that you're casting.

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh.

Please do yourself a favor and think long and hard before posting spelling flames. The joke may be on you.

[ QUOTE ]
That is why I said that a vote for Dem is a never a vote for small government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely false. Clinton cut the federal budget to the bone. He was running surpluses. The biggest budget deficits in history are currently occurring under a Republican-controlled White House and a Republican-controlled Congress. The second-biggest budget deficits in history occurred under Reagan. It wasn't until Clinton was elected that the budget began to be cut.

It's too bad Democrats don't tout their history of smaller government. Instead, they have ceded this area to the Republicans and many fools believe that the Republicans will cut government when it is absolutely not true.

Republicans stand for lower taxes for the rich coupled with massive defense spending. Massive defense spending does not lead to smaller government.

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton cut the federal budget to the bone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not get carried away, here. Let's just leave it at Clinton=surpluses and paying down the national debt, and Republicans=record deficits. The truth is enough to make the point without "interpretation" or embellishment.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is why I said that a vote for Dem is a never a vote for small government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely false. Clinton cut the federal budget to the bone. He was running surpluses. The biggest budget deficits in history are currently occurring under a Republican-controlled White House and a Republican-controlled Congress. The second-biggest budget deficits in history occurred under Reagan. It wasn't until Clinton was elected that the budget began to be cut.

It's too bad Democrats don't tout their history of smaller government. Instead, they have ceded this area to the Republicans and many fools believe that the Republicans will cut government when it is absolutely not true.

Republicans stand for lower taxes for the rich coupled with massive defense spending. Massive defense spending does not lead to smaller government.

[/ QUOTE ]

What programs did Clinton cut? Did government spending increase or decrease under Clinton (even accounting for inflation)?

I don't really think my post was caustic enough to labelled a flame, but if he was intentionally misspelling I guess I apologize?

He called me a moron and misspelled it. I think it's fair, and not 'flamy' to point it out.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really think my post was caustic enough to labelled a flame, but if he was intentionally misspelling I guess I apologize?

He called me a moron and misspelled it. I think it's fair, and not 'flamy' to point it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ironic "moran" is the preferred spelling around here, thanks to the iconic picture of the right-winger in my post.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
NateDog advocates parent's choosing their children's school and you argue against monarchy??? Do you think society has a higer ownership claim on children than their parents?

[/ QUOTE ]
You misunderstood -- to put it mildly!

I am all in favor of the parents choosing what their children will learn. But, unless you advoctae strictly home-schooling, we need to agree on the practicalities of the damn thing.

How do we get children to schol and agree on the curriculum?

I said that we, the parents, have to agree on what the school teaches and, moreover, it is mathematically very difficult, if not impossible, to have every parent agreeing on every single item of the curriculum. In such cases, a parent who would like, for example his kid to learn in Chemistry ten ways how to manufacture methamphetamine would probably lose in a vote.

Additionally, I argued that parents are assumed to have "decided" whaht their offrsping will learn at schol through their representatives, i.e. the principals, the education board, etc. And if the parents do not like what is being taught, they should change it.

At this point we have to ask what is supposed to happen nation-wide, because at some stage the interests of the whole country enter into it. (E.g. even if some folks decide not to teach their kids Mathematics at all, the country benefits from teaching the kids rudemintary math.) Therefore, accepting the state means accepting that it wlll play some role in the kid's education, it means that it is neccesary at some point for the parent to compromise to an extent.

...Is the fog lifting at all ?

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]

Additionally, I argued that parents are assumed to have "decided" whaht their offrsping will learn at schol through their representatives, i.e. the principals, the education board, etc. And if the parents do not like what is being taught, they should change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But often you can't change it. If you are in the minority you are stuck. And perhaps your representatives aren't really voted in by you (national BOE). Since it is impossible to switch schools, your stuck. Why not let parents choose what school you can go to. Then they can actually decide what thier kid will learn.

[ QUOTE ]

At this point we have to ask what is supposed to happen nation-wide, because at some stage the interests of the whole country enter into it. (E.g. even if some folks decide not to teach their kids Mathematics at all, the country benefits from teaching the kids rudemintary math.) Therefore, accepting the state means accepting that it wlll play some role in the kid's education, it means that it is neccesary at some point for the parent to compromise to an extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that the state is making better choices then the parents. I see no evidence that, on the whole, this is true. It may even be theoretically flawed, in that how can you measure "correct" curriculum. Should civics classes be included? Are team sports an important part of growing up? What about music? How should we go about teaching history?