McCain's RNC speech

[Tom In VA]

Who among the two major parties running for president isn't a shameless liar LTS ?

[KC Scott]

Oh, fuck it;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008 ... APHIC.html

I'll rack Rudy for not invoking the name of imaginary friends.

When I took one of those on line polls as to what candidate best shared my view - Rudy was top choice

Too bad he knew zilch about campaigning

[Terry in Crapchester]

Going back to this . . .

The part that got my attention...

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... ohnmccain1

The whole thing was far better than I expected, but to come out as pro-choice on a real issue...

Excelent.

Barak who?

We already provide for free education through 12th grade in this country. Truth be told, I would've been much more interested in hearing what McCain had to say about helping to make post-secondary education more affordable. But of course, he has no plan in that regard.

The prospect of getting my kids a 12th grade education of at least passable quality does not keep me awake at nights. The prospect of getting them a college education that won't keep them in debt for the majority (at least) of their adult lives, however, does.

Unless, of course, you think that a 12th grade education should be sufficient to prepare kids for the real world. If that's the case, however, even the best high schools in the country are abject failures, and vouchers clearly are not the answer.

[Diogenes]

Going back to this . . .

The part that got my attention...

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... ohnmccain1

The whole thing was far better than I expected, but to come out as pro-choice on a real issue...

Excelent.

Barak who?

The prospect of getting my kids a 12th grade education of at least passable quality does not keep me awake at nights.

Congradulations on the fact that you probably have a decent income and live in a decent school district. Not everyone does. And just writing off the children of lower income folks as sacrifices on the altar of union triumphilism and bureaucratic status quo is not only morally reprehensible in the present but socially self-destructive for the future. Parents should be allowed to decide where to have their kids educated. And if the public schools where they live don't do the job, than the funds that go to these cesspools should be used for charter, parochial or private schools.

[Diogenes]

Because of her galling lack of experinece and knowledge of any actual national issues, she will NOT BE TAKING ANY QUESTIONS from any members of the press before the election.

More Lies from the Left on Media Interviews for Sarah Palin

I’ve heard it no less than five times this morning by Obamabot media pundits that Sarah Palin is not being allowed to do media interviews because _____________ (fill in the blank). Usually the reasons vary from she is afraid or she isn’t ready or the McCain camp is afraid or, or, or.

Ed Morrissey got a copy of Palin’s schedule today.

Look what we see:

Saturday, September 6, 2008
Colorado and New Mexico

10:00am Media Interview
10:30am Satellite into AARP Convention
11:30am Media Interview
12:30pm MT “The Road to Victory Rally”
Colorado Springs, CO
1:45pm MT Depart Colorado
2:50pm MT Arrive NM
3:30pm MT Media Interviews
7:00pm MT “The Road to Victory Rally”
Albuquerque Convention Center

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/index.php?/si ... rah_palin/

Idiot.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Congradulations on the fact that you probably have a decent income and live in a decent school district. Not everyone does. And just writing off the children of lower income folks as sacrifices on the altar of union triumphilism and bureaucratic status quo is not only morally reprehensible in the present but socially self-destructive for the future. Parents should be allowed to decide where to have their kids educated. And if the public schools where they live don't do the job, than the funds that go to these cesspools should be used for charter, parochial or private schools.

What you and I consider a "decent income" is probably different, given that I specifically mentioned above that I lie awake at nights worrying about how to get a college education for my kids that won't leave them in debt for the majority of their adult lives. Of course, by my standard, only a minority of people would have a "decent income."

Vouchers are not the answer, though. Imho, the voucher proposal is little more than a roundabout way of killing the public education system by fatally underfunding it. Not saying that's what all voucher advocates want, but certainly some do, and many of the rest haven't completely thought through the idea. Not to mention that the private schools are neither able to pick up the slack, nor particularly interested in doing so.

To me, the question of how to fund college education is far more interesting -- and more crucial to the long-term economic health of the country.

[Diogenes]

Congradulations on the fact that you probably have a decent income and live in a decent school district. Not everyone does. And just writing off the children of lower income folks as sacrifices on the altar of union triumphilism and bureaucratic status quo is not only morally reprehensible in the present but socially self-destructive for the future. Parents should be allowed to decide where to have their kids educated. And if the public schools where they live don't do the job, than the funds that go to these cesspools should be used for charter, parochial or private schools.

Imho, the voucher proposal is little more than a roundabout way of killing the public education system by fatally underfunding it. Not saying that's what all voucher advocates want, but certainly some do, and many of the rest haven't completely thought through the idea. Not to mention that the private schools are neither able to pick up the slack, nor particularly interested in doing so.

A) The schools that are doing a good job wouldn't be affected by school choice. And the ones that are driven out of buisness deserve to be.

B) History refutes your other contention. The largest voucher system in history was adopted after WW II, namely the GI Bill. It led to an explosion in availability of higher education, not merely for veterans, but for the public in general.

I know you neither believeit or like it, but the market works.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Congradulations on the fact that you probably have a decent income and live in a decent school district. Not everyone does. And just writing off the children of lower income folks as sacrifices on the altar of union triumphilism and bureaucratic status quo is not only morally reprehensible in the present but socially self-destructive for the future. Parents should be allowed to decide where to have their kids educated. And if the public schools where they live don't do the job, than the funds that go to these cesspools should be used for charter, parochial or private schools.

Imho, the voucher proposal is little more than a roundabout way of killing the public education system by fatally underfunding it. Not saying that's what all voucher advocates want, but certainly some do, and many of the rest haven't completely thought through the idea. Not to mention that the private schools are neither able to pick up the slack, nor particularly interested in doing so.

A) The schools that are doing a good job wouldn't be affected by school choice. And the ones that are driven out of buisness deserve to be.

I'm not concerned about those schools. I am, however, concerned about their students. Where do they go?

The private schools are not equipped to pick up the slack, nor do they particularly care to be.

B) History refutes your other contention. The largest voucher system in history was adopted after WW II, namely the GI Bill. It led to an explosion in availability of higher education, not merely for veterans, but for the public in general.

That you're comparing the GI bill to the proposed voucher program is beyond laughable. We have a guaranteed educational system through 12th grade. We have no such system for college education, nor did we prior to WWII. In fact, prior to WWII, college pretty much was restricted to the children of the privileged.

The GI bill ties in to a far greater extent with my concern, i.e., making college affordable to the middle class, than it does with your concern. And my concern is something on which you, and your candidate, have been remarkably silent.

Btw, the GI bill was, and is, precisely the type of so-called "big government, nanny state" program that you and your party claim to despise. Tell me you knew.

[Diego in Seattle]

And speaking of "more big government," it didn't go unnoticed that Palin guaranteed that the WH would provide more.

[Diogenes]

Imho, the voucher proposal is little more than a roundabout way of killing the public education system by fatally underfunding it. Not saying that's what all voucher advocates want, but certainly some do, and many of the rest haven't completely thought through the idea. Not to mention that the private schools are neither able to pick up the slack, nor particularly interested in doing so.

A) The schools that are doing a good job wouldn't be affected by school choice. And the ones that are driven out of buisness deserve to be.

I'm not concerned about those schools. I am, however, concerned about their students. Where do they go?

Wherever their parents want. As far as the lack of private schools, if the funding is made available, there will be more started up.

Again, the market works and parents are better at deciding what is good for their kids than bureaucrats

B) History refutes your other contention. The largest voucher system in history was adopted after WW II, namely the GI Bill. It led to an explosion in availability of higher education, not merely for veterans, but for the public in general.

That you're comparing the GI bill to the proposed voucher program is beyond laughable. We have a guaranteed educational system through 12th grade. We have no such system for college education, nor did we prior to WWII.

As we shouldn't. The more government provides for college funding, the higher it costs. Not everyone has the ability to go to college, and treating it as a 'right' mearly drives up costs, empowers bureaucrats and sub-par proffessors and dilutes the value of said degrees.

Btw, the GI bill was, and is, precisely the type of so-called "big government, nanny state" program that you and your party claim to despise.

No, it isn't. It is a benefit for people who actually serve their country.

If your kids aren't smart and skilled enough to get a scholorship and you're to dirt-poor to provide them an education, maybe they should act like good citizens and reap the benefits.

[Diego in Seattle]

And speaking of "more big government," it didn't go unnoticed that Palin guaranteed that the WH would provide more.

Well, it can't get any bigger than it is now. Sounds like a safe claim to make.

My bad. I meant to say that she guaranteed that a McCain/Palin WH would expand government.

[Diogenes]

And speaking of "more big government," it didn't go unnoticed that Palin guaranteed that the WH would provide more.

Well, it can't get any bigger than it is now. Sounds like a safe claim to make.

My bad. I meant to say that she guaranteed that a McCain/Palin WH would expand government.

Paging Charles Martin...

[Terry in Crapchester]

As we shouldn't. The more government provides for college funding, the higher it costs. Not everyone has the ability to go to college, and treating it as a 'right' mearly drives up costs, empowers bureaucrats and sub-par proffessors and dilutes the value of said degrees.

A. Interesting that you're making the argument in your first sentence with respect to college education but not with respect to a voucher program. What's to stop private schools from raising tuition commensurate with the amount of a voucher? From the school's standpoint, that's a win-win situation: the kids who are already attending can get a voucher, they pay more tuition without it costing their parents anything out-of-pocket, and meanwhile, you keep the public school riff-raff out, since they still can't afford to go.

B. Agreed that not everyone is college material. But in this day and age, I would submit that everyone needs some sort of post-secondary education, whether it be vocational/trade school or college. As I stated earlier, if a 12th grade education is supposed to prepare you for the real world, then even the best high schools in the country are abject failures.

If your kids aren't smart and skilled enough to get a scholorship and you're to dirt-poor to provide them an education, maybe they should act like good citizens and reap the benefits.

A. Once again, it's interesting that you're making this argument with respect to college but not with respect to vouchers. As it is, some private schools offer scholarships and/or financial aid. Some will waive tuition, or at least a significant portion of it, if you're willing to participate in fundraisers. If you're truly serious about letting the market decide, you'd trust these programs rather than advocate for a massive redistribution of public funds to private schools.

B. These days you certainly don't need to be "dirt-poor" to be unable to afford a college education for your child. Typically, the cost of a college education these days runs about $15K/year at a state college or university, about $35-40K/year at a private school. That's out of reach for the middle class without some type of help.

Even ROTC scholarships, which provided full tuition plus some fees (although not room and board) when I was in college, are now capped to the point that they no longer provide full tuition.

[Diogenes]

As we shouldn't. The more government provides for college funding, the higher it costs. Not everyone has the ability to go to college, and treating it as a 'right' mearly drives up costs, empowers bureaucrats and sub-par proffessors and dilutes the value of said degrees.

A. Interesting that you're making the argument in your first sentence with respect to college education but not with respect to a voucher program. What's to stop private schools from raising tuition commensurate with the amount of a voucher? From the school's standpoint, that's a win-win situation: the kids who are already attending can get a voucher, they pay more tuition without it costing their parents anything out-of-pocket, and meanwhile, you keep the public school riff-raff out, since they still can't afford to go.

B. Agreed that not everyone is college material. But in this day and age, I would submit that everyone needs some sort of post-secondary education, whether it be vocational/trade school or college. As I stated earlier, if a 12th grade education is supposed to prepare you for the real world, then even the best high schools in the country are abject failures.

If your kids aren't smart and skilled enough to get a scholorship and you're to dirt-poor to provide them an education, maybe they should act like good citizens and reap the benefits.

A. Once again, it's interesting that you're making this argument with respect to college but not with respect to vouchers. As it is, some private schools offer scholarships and/or financial aid. Some will waive tuition, or at least a significant portion of it, if you're willing to participate in fundraisers. If you're truly serious about letting the market decide, you'd trust these programs rather than advocate for a massive redistribution of public funds to private schools.

B. These days you certainly don't need to be "dirt-poor" to be unable to afford a college education for your child. Typically, the cost of a college education these days runs about $15K/year at a state college or university, about $35-40K/year at a private school. That's out of reach for the middle class without some type of help.

Even ROTC scholarships, which provided full tuition plus some fees (although not room and board) when I was in college, are now capped to the point that they no longer provide full tuition.

1)Nobody is suggesting increasing funding for secondary education, but using the money already there wisely and in the interests of parents and children. If existing privite schools want to raise their tuitions, so what? Others will be started up to do the job needed, they can stick to being elitist swamp pits. And obviously the criteria for recieving vouchers would be a)lack of acceptable public schools and b)means-testing.

2)I'd go further. If a student has neither the ability or inclination to attend college, they should be allowed to pursue technical or vocational school early, while a sophmore or junior. Let tech school be a alternative to foreign language, literature or other courses these students will never use and don't care about, as well as other electives. Let them get their HS diplomas ready for the work force.

3) Again, you are assuming a zero sum game. See 1)

4) So what? If you don't have the grades or the money, go get a job. Join the service and earn your way. Quit throwing taxpayer money at the problem. It only makes it grow.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Quit throwing taxpayer money at the problem. It only makes it grow.

A pretty good argument against vouchers, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Diogenes]

Quit throwing taxpayer money at the problem. It only makes it grow.

A pretty good argument against vouchers, whether you want to admit it or not.

Only if you are suggesting canceling government funding altogether. The GOP and I are only in favor of using it to actually educate kids, in particular those most in need of help.

Higher education is a mess because of government funding without accountability. That is also the status quo in secondary education. Vouchers involve means testing, accountability and putting the needs of kids over the lust for power of administrators and unions.

[Diego in Seattle]

Paging Charles Martin...

Thanks for making my point. She expanded the government's role as governor by 175%. Imagine how much such an increase would cost at the federal level.

[Diogenes]

Paging Charles Martin...

Thanks for making my point. She expanded the government's role as governor by 175%

Is this what you're babbling about?

38. No, she didn’t cut special needs student funding; yes, she did raise it by “only” 175 percent.

Your comrades at dailykos are calling that a 62% cut. I wish you losers would make up your minds.


And either way, it has nothing to do with the overall budget.

[Diogenes]

More Palin rumors for DiS and his comerades at the kos to track down...

1. No, Sarah Palin did not have a torrid love affair with GEN Petraeus while she was in Kuwait visiting AKNG troops.
2. No, Sarah Palin did not pull Saddam out of his spider hole while she was in Kuwait visiting AKNG troops.
3. No, Sarah Palin did not offer mooseburger (or USS Moosebrugger DD-980) to Kuwaiti sheiks while she was visiting AKNG troops.
4. No, Sarah Palin did not offer her services as a “dance hall girl” during the Klondike gold rush or the building of the Alaska pipeline.
5. No, Sarah Palin did not set any out-of-favor members of the Wasilla or Alaska government adrift on an ice floe to preserve the remainder of the tribe. (She might have thought about it from time to time.)
6. No, Sarah Palin is not Cher’s new stage name.
7. No, Sarah Palin did not kill a camel spider with her teeth while in Kuwait visiting AKNG troops.
8. No, Todd Palin did not father any of the Spears girls' children.
9. No, Sarah Palin did not agree to jello wrestle Oprah on the David Letterman Show, although the fruit baskets Dave sent were magnificent.
10. No, Sarah Palin does not volunteer to serve as the Alaska state executioner to break up the long winter nights. (That's what she has Todd for.)
11. No, Sarah Palin did not “kilt her a b'ar when she was only three.” (Rumors of her mother holding her up as an infant on Pride Rock to accept the fealty of all the animals have no video evidence to dismiss it.)
12. No, Sarah Palin did not hunt down and kill everybody with a picture of her in a bikini from her pageant days. (Most people destroyed the negatives of their own free will after the disappearances started.)

http://www.moderaterisk.net/2008/09/dis ... ear_fi.php

We're all breathlessly awaiting The Truth.

[Nishlord]

Hopefully, Maverick John McCain Who Was Tortured For Five Years Because He Loves America will be able to oust that party of Big Government who nationalised two mortgage companies this morning. Fucking Marxist scumbags, choking the dreams of people who only wanted a stupidly massive house that they couldn't afford.

[BSmack]

17. Yes, Dio is a paste eating retard.

[Diogenes]

17. Yes, Dio is still in my dome.

[Diego in Seattle]

Hey Dio...why haven't you quoted McCain or Palin on what happened to the Alaskan governor's jet?

[Diogenes]

Hey Dio...why haven't you quoted McCain or Palin on what happened to the Alaskan governor's jet?

Beats me. Why haven't you come up with anything that wasn't either a steaming pile of shit, irrelevant or tedious?

Or all of the above?

[titlover]

Hopefully, Maverick John McCain Who Was Tortured For Five Years Because He Loves America will be able to oust that party of Big Government who nationalised two mortgage companies this morning. Fucking Marxist scumbags, choking the dreams of people who only wanted a stupidly massive house that they couldn't afford.

i wonder if you posted the same thing when Kerry wouldn't stop reminding everyone he was a Vietnam Vet.

did you get sick of that too?

[Nishlord]

Not as sick as I feel when I read your shit posts. Are there no underage boys on this forum who you could be grooming at the moment?

[Cuda]

I think you've got him mixed up with Diego, nish

[Diogenes]

Does Palin have a problem with earmarks?

[titlover]

Not as sick as I feel when I read your shit posts. Are there no underage boys on this forum who you could be grooming at the moment?

good job avoiding the question, limey.

[Diogenes]

Just when you think the left can't get any sticker...

Canadian doctor warns Sarah Palin's decision to have Down baby could reduce abortions



Sarah and Todd Palin's decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a DAlaska Governor, Republican vice presidential candidate and mother of five Sarah Palin with 5 month old Trigown syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions.

Published reports in Canada say about 9 out of 10 women given a diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy through abortion.

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that Palin's now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.

He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.

Wider use of blood screening and amniocentesis during pregnancies can now accurately predict the presence of Down syndrome.

Lalonde says his primary concern is that women have the....

...choice of abortion and that greater public awareness of women making choices like Palin to complete a pregnancy and give birth to their genetically-abnormal baby could be detrimental and confusing to the women and their families.

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," Lalonde tells the Globe and Mail

[Diogenes]

Back to the original topic...

Lower Education Blues
By J.T. Young
Published 9/12/2008 12:07:52 AM

With another school year just under way, parents understandably wonder how well their children are advancing. Perhaps parents' real concern should be whether their children are actually falling behind. From a comparative viewpoint, they clearly are. America spends the most on education and gets less than virtually any developed nation. The failure of America's "lower education" system bears witness to competition's absence. Without fundamental reform, future generations will pay an increasing cost for this absence.

The National Center for Education Statistics compared 15 year-old public school students in several countries in several subject areas. Released in 2006, their study of 2003 results (their latest figures) shows the U.S. below the OECD average in math (483 to 500) and science (491 to 500) and just slightly above average (495 to 494) in reading. Only five nations scored below the U.S. in all these categories -- Greece, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, and Turkey.

Perhaps these results would be understandable, if not acceptable, if the U.S. spent less on education, but the reverse is true. The U.S. spent $8,900 per pupil. France spent $7,200; the U.K. $6,800; Japan, $6,800; and Germany, $6,500. As recently as the last school year, the U.S. spent $9,969 per pupil and $489 billion nationwide on elementary and secondary public education.

The difference between America's higher education and "lower education" -- its elementary and secondary systems -- is dramatic. While "lower ed" under-performs other developed countries', graduates from those systems flock to America's higher education institutions. This may convince some that everything equalizes over the long-term -- what's lost in the beginning is recouped at the end. Such thought is as shortsighted as it is wrong.

This is especially true for lower income students. Many such students begin the education race behind the starting line. It is little surprise that too many never reach the finish line at all. This slow start virtually requires additional education will be needed by those least able to afford it, or its absence. For lower income families, a self-replicating cycle threatens.


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN America's primary and secondary public schools and its higher education system has been noted before; however, the defining difference of competition is too often overlooked. The performance gap is instead attributed to other factors -- colleges and universities' large endowments and that these institutions attract only the most motivated and talented students (while public primary and secondary schools take all comers).

Yet, the fact remains that on a global basis, U.S. higher education out-performs while U.S. elementary and secondary public education under-performs. Why? Competition. Competition is not the result of our higher education excellence, it is the cause. Students do not simply compete to get in, they do so because colleges compete with each other.

Competition is the very thing from which our primary and secondary public schools have so assiduously insulated themselves. America's "lower education" is literally locked in place. While American colleges attract students on a global level, our primary and secondary public schools trap students at the local level.

Thoroughly unportable, elementary and secondary public school students are forced to attend where they live -- unable to go across town, let alone across country. College students go wherever they wish (grades permitting). Because of it, colleges strive to attract dollars and students wherever they are -- locally, nationally, and internationally. Lower education neither wants nor needs students from beyond its local area. It defines a monopoly: many buyers facing a single supplier.

In contrast, the absence of competition drives out resources. Competition attracts them because, whether money or students, they know they will be rewarded in a competitive system. Of course American colleges excel. Students are willing to pay more to go to the better ones and colleges in turn are willing to make the investment to attract them -- ironically both are able to do so because federal education aid at the college level is completely portable.


THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION is to raise our "lower education" system as much as possible. To do this, our public schools must compete as much as possible and to do that, federal aid needs to be as portable as possible. Despite the laudable reforms of No Child Left Behind, portable federal school aid at the elementary and secondary level remains the exception, not the rule.

While our "lower education" system may imagine itself insulated from competition, America itself is not. To compete globally, we must start at the beginning. One look at the global competition dynamic explains why. Undeveloped nations compensate for worse education with lower wage and operating costs. Developed nations can compete, but only with higher productivity, which requires greater education. Where then is America's advantage? If it cannot compete with undeveloped nations' lower wages and is falling behind its developed competitors in the basic educational skills for the majority of its workforce, it finds itself in a particularly unattractive position. As the school year begins, perhaps what is most in need of education is our "lower education" system itself.


J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001-2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987-2000.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13874

[Moving Sale]

Back to the original topic...

As recently as the last school year, the U.S. spent $9,969 per pupil and $489 billion nationwide on elementary and secondary public education.

Which you were against, before you were for it.

Gawd you are one stupid fuck.

[Diogenes]

Back to the original topic...

As recently as the last school year, the U.S. spent $9,969 per pupil and $489 billion nationwide on elementary and secondary public education.

Which you were against, before you were for it.

What the fuck are you babbling about?


Oh wait. I don't care.

[Moving Sale]

]What the fuck are you babbling about?

No Short Term Memory Much?

Oh wait. I don't care.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

[Diogenes]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

No Short Term Memory Much?

Only when it comes to the ravings of the mentally challenged.

Oh wait. I don't care.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

I don't.

Why do you hate rational thought?

[Moving Sale]

How is the national government being up to its eyeballs in the funding and regulation of education "rational?"

Spin away fucktard.

[Diogenes]

How is the national government being up to its eyeballs in the funding and regulation of education "rational?"

Wake up and smell the 21st century, biotch. There is no question of whether or not the federal government is going to overstep their rightful bounds, but what to do about it.

Should we scrap the 17th amendment? Absofuckinglutely.

Throw in 16, 24 and 26 and I'm jazzed.

For the record, never going to happen. The option is what we do with the system we have. And in this case, since the federal government IS going to take my money to indoctrinate... I mean teach other peoples kids, I would prefer that either I get to decide what they learn (best of all worlds, we could actually have that utopia you leftist losers dream about) or barring that, give their parents the benefit of the doubt over corrupt beureaucrats and union hacks.


Do you not get any of this, moron?



Screw it. Don't you have some Paul/LaRouche pamplets to be passing out?

[titlover]

Hopefully, Maverick John McCain Who Was Tortured For Five Years Because He Loves America will be able to oust that party of Big Government who nationalised two mortgage companies this morning. Fucking Marxist scumbags, choking the dreams of people who only wanted a stupidly massive house that they couldn't afford.

guess who Freddy Mac and Fannie contributed most to?

fuck off, limey fuckhole

[Nishlord]

Not as sick as I feel when I read your shit posts. Are there no underage boys on this forum who you could be grooming at the moment?

good job avoiding the question, limey.

When I come across a dog turd in the street, I step around it, not bend down to have a chat with it.

[Diogenes]

When I come across a lefty Brit in the street, I step around it, not bend down to have a chat with it.

Good choice, mate.