Republicans: Stop funding PBS and Nat'l Endowment for the Arts

[5stringJeff]

Although it seems like a side issue the Department of Education really is unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal government to be involved with education.

With that said, I dont think any politician would have the balls to actually disolve the department or even cut funding from it. We could be wasting billions of dollars in it and provide far more efficient ways to spend the money, yet the politics involved it it would never allow. And there is no way the Courts will eliminate the department either..

The fact is we are stuck with it right now until people wake up and start remember the principles of small government.

Newt Gingrich wanted to eliminate it. Too bad he wasn't able to do so. But you are right - the federal government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in education.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Newt Gingrich wanted to eliminate it. Too bad he wasn't able to do so. But you are right - the federal government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in education.

So you guys all want private-only schools?

 

[5stringJeff]

So you guys all want private-only schools?

No, we want the federal government out of the education business. Many of us conservatives still believe in limited government. We believe that since there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, that the DoE is a de facto unconstitutional agency.

We believe that state and local governments can best determine the educational standards for their own kids.

 

[Abbey Normal]

If the professor I have now is liberal, he is really good at hiding it.

He or she could be an exception. But sometimes it's hard to tell at the time, because we are so busy trying to learn the subject matter and do well.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

In case you haven't noticed, the Dept of Homeland Security isn't involved with the fighting in Iraq, that is the Department of Defense, but of course, you probably didn't know that.

If you would spend half as much time actually reading my posts as you do admiring your own reflection, you would know that I never said the Dept of Homeland security is fighting the war. I said the Homeland security bureacracy is inefficient and could stand some cuts.

Spare me the tired cliches and sanctimonious platitudes HC... I've heard them all before....

Well obviously you need to hear them again.

Let's talk facts instead of lifting lines from Senator Clinton's last political speech...

Here it comes, bash the Clintons. I'll bet you find some way to bring up the Clintons in every political debate you have no matter how non sequiter it may be just so you can accuse them of some new evil.

For your information, we spend an average of 10,000 dollars per student per year on Education, if you include the amount of money that homeowners like myself fork over in property taxes. Over the course of 13 years (K-12), that's 130,000 dollars per child over the course of their public school career. So where does all that money go? Much of it goes to the Teachers' Unions, not towards educating little Johnny or Jane. And that's the way the Teachers' Unions like it since they stand to reap the windfall from much of that income. Of course, the Teachers' Unions little stooges, aka the Democrats, fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo, since the Teachers Unions are the DNC's biggest contributors. In the meantime, Johnny can't read, little Jane can't add but they both know how to use a condom!

They should know how to use a condom. Are you naive enough to think that teens will suppress 300,000 years of natural instinct and not **** just because their parents tell them not to? Please.
And I like how you found a way to stick your "teacher's unions" sermon into this diatribe so it would appear that it is more than just a backhanded insult directed at me. If you had taken your eyes off of your reflection for a moment to actually read my last post, you would have noticed that I also recommend revamping the teacher union system to make teachers accountable for keeping their curricula updated as well as their teaching methods and student gpa's. If they can't show that they are effective as teachers, they should be let go, not given tenure. But you can't totally deunionize teachers because they would have no control over their wages or benefits. And we all know the government can't be trusted to keep wages fair. And I think teachers should have relatively high wages and ample benefits for what they do. The teaching profession is extremely valuable to society.

Hey, have you ever sat on a Grand Jury? I have... most of the murders and mayhem are due to crack, speed and drugs..... let's keep fighting that war.

Yeah, let's keep overcrowding our prisons with non-violent criminals who got caught smoking marijuana or snorting cocaine. And lets keep killing South American farmers and burning their crops because the only thing they can make a profit growing is coca because nothing else sells. Lets keep spending billions every year to eradicate the "reefer madness."

Sad to say, yes, much of our economy is coming from China. As I said before, a lot of it is due to government regulation, and to litigation.

Also, the Chinese have artificially lowered the value of their currency, so they appear to be a cheap labor force (the Bush Administration and other governments have been pressuring the government of the PRC to allow its currency to "float" to address this problem). The buffet eating Americans include YOU, too. You and I both benefit from this situation. For one thing, the rate of inflation is low, also the fact that much of the work is going overseas allows the American economy to expand in other, more profitable areas e.g. information services, financial services etc. That's how a free market economy works. If American corporations did not outsource their labor to China and other countries, their competitors in other countries would still continue to do so. BTW... what "loss of jobs" are we talking about? The unemployment rate is at 5%, better than the average unemployment rate during the Clinton Administration.

I'm talking about the loss of skilled labor in the US. We're losing our industry to other nations and replacing it with intangible service jobs. Fifty years from now, a Chinaman will be able to say "I'm a master metal worker," while an average American will say, "I have people skills."

So why aren't those teachers let go and replaced with teachers who have "kept their curricula updated"? Because the school districts know that the local teacher's union will take them to court to get those teachers reinstated.

Like I said, change the rules. Obviously, a teacher isn't much use if they can't teach!

Good teachers aren't allowed to teach (discipline a student and risk a lawsuit)....

Good, I don't want some shithead teacher hitting my kids, do you?

schools aren't allowed to fire incompetent teachers (the local teacher's union would object and cause a stir).....

See above.

standardized tests have been opposed by the country's largest teacher's union, the National Education Association or NEA, since they were first proposed (and by the Clintons and other Democrats as well).....

Standardized tests are not accurate measures of intelligence. They don't measure abstract thinking skills, artistic ability, emotional intelligence, reasoning skills, logic or anything other than a preset curriculum, which will never be learned if teachers are incompetent.

school vouchers have also been opposed by the NEA even though they have been shown to help poor disadvantaged minorities in school districts that have poor schools. All because of the Teachers' Unions.

I grew up priviledged, I don't know what school vouchers are.

BTW.... name one other profession that has "tenure" outside of education... i.e. a guaranteed job to those who have so many years on the job... that's right, there IS no other profession that has tenure! So if a teacher that has been around for 15-20 years decides that he or she isn't going to keep up to date on their curricula, what motivation do they have to do a good job?

None! I agree with you here, so stop harping already!

The fact is that scores have been dropping since 1963 even if you take the "retooling" into account. The number of teachers teaching our children have increased since 1963 (so it's not for lack of teachers), the average size of a classroom has shrunk by a substantial percentage since 1963 (so it's not classroom size).... the fact is kids today don't know as much as their parents or grandparents did....

But here's a conundrum for you...With the advent of the internet and other communications technologies that allow for instant gratification when it comes to one's ability to acquire data, can today's kids' knowledge base be accurately compared to that of previous generations? I think you're wrong. Kids today know a lot more than their parents and grandparents did at their ages simply because they are bombarded by more media at all times than their predecessors were. And yesterday's standardized tests can't accurately reflect that.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

A Proactive War on Terror is a liiiiiitle more important than PBS. Wanna watch a nice documentary? Try the Discovery Channel or the History Channel. The Disney Channel and Toon Disney have some nice cartoons for kids. If you want news there are a ton of channels for that also. With most people having cable a government-funded TV network makes no sense. PBS is simply money better spent on something else.

Of course it is. Killing brown people has always been more important than educating the public.

And if you're upset at corporations for moving their business outside the US, some introspection may be in order. Make it more profitable for them to do business HERE. Don't be campaigning every election talking about how you're going to tax them 'till they bleed.

I've haven't run for election yet, but when I do, I'll keep this advice in mind.

 

[KarlMarx]

If you would spend half as much time actually reading my posts as you do admiring your own reflection, you would know that I never said the Dept of Homeland security is fighting the war. I said the Homeland security bureacracy is inefficient and could stand some cuts.

Hey HC.... you obviously have me confused for your personal toilet paper.... go vent your spleen on someone else...... you started on the Iraq War and Homeland Security.....

Well obviously you need to hear them again.

Until I bleat as much as you?

Here it comes, bash the Clintons. I'll bet you find some way to bring up the Clintons in every political debate you have no matter how non sequiter it may be just so you can accuse them of some new evil.

Why not? You and your left wing buddies have been a non-stop temper tantrum since the 2000 elections!!!!!!!! You've blamed Bush for everything from 9/11 to global warming .... and he wasn't impeached..... seems like you don't care for the taste of your own medicine

They should know how to use a condom. Are you naive enough to think that teens will suppress 300,000 years of natural instinct and not **** just because their parents tell them not to? Please.

Yes, so they can be lulled into a false sense of security.... BTW 2 decades of the safe sex message and HIV is on the upswing...... I guess all that "education" didn't do much good did it? But according to your left wing logic, if it doesn't work do it again and again and again until reality finally concedes!!!!!!

And I like how you found a way to stick your "teacher's unions" sermon into this diatribe so it would appear that it is more than just a backhanded insult directed at me.

Backhanded insult?????? What are you talking about????? Read Linda Chavez' book "Betrayal" and you'll see that I'm being nice!

The only way the teacher's unions will be "revamped" is to completely dismantle them and that won't happen because they are the biggest contributors to the DNC and THAT'S A FACT!

Yeah, let's keep overcrowding our prisons with non-violent criminals who got caught smoking marijuana or snorting cocaine. And lets keep killing South American farmers and burning their crops because the only thing they can make a profit growing is coca because nothing else sells. Lets keep spending billions every year to eradicate the "reefer madness."

Overcrowding of prisons translates into safer streets for little old ladies... if you're concerned about overcrowded prisons, then let's build a lot more of them.

I'm talking about the loss of skilled labor in the US. We're losing our industry to other nations and replacing it with intangible service jobs. Fifty years from now, a Chinaman will be able to say "I'm a master metal worker," while an average American will say, "I have people skills."

A hundred years ago, there were less than 100 million people in this country and 80% of the population were farmers, now we have almost 300 million and less than 5% of the population is involved in farming. That is how a free market economy works, skills change, economies shift. Twenty years ago, people were worried about Japan, now its China.... eventually the law of supply and demand will catch up with them, too.

Good, I don't want some shithead teacher hitting my kids, do you?

Discipline means more than physical discipline .... how about some shithead punk pulling a gun or a knife on my kid's teacher while he's in class? Got it?

HC.... you obviously have a lot of growing up to do.... and don't bother replying to this... I've placed you where all trolls belong, on my "ignore" list.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm not taking sides between the two of you, just taking two points into contention:

Yes, so they can be lulled into a false sense of security.... BTW 2 decades of the safe sex message and HIV is on the upswing...... I guess all that "education" didn't do much good did it? But according to your left wing logic, if it doesn't work do it again and again and again until reality finally concedes!!!!!!

HIV rates aren't the sole measure as to whether the safe sex message has been a success...

Overcrowding of prisons translates into safer streets for little old ladies... if you're concerned about overcrowded prisons, then let's build a lot more of them.

Yes, the more people you lock up, the less chance you have of stumbling across a criminal. That's dangerous logic, in my mind. The justice system in this country is failing, and just like you complain about the safe sex message repeating itself, you just want to continue down the same path and build more prisons to imprison more people. There are other ways of dealing with crime other than prosecuting everyone.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm not taking sides between the two of you, just taking two points into contention:



HIV rates aren't the sole measure as to whether the safe sex message has been a success...



Yes, the more people you lock up, the less chance you have of stumbling across a criminal. That's dangerous logic, in my mind. The justice system in this country is failing, and just like you complain about the safe sex message repeating itself, you just want to continue down the same path and build more prisons to imprison more people. There are other ways of dealing with crime other than prosecuting everyone.

HIV rates aren't indicative of the success of safe sex programs.

Locking up criminals to protect the rest of us is dangerous logic.

DUde, you're a loon. Really. WHy do you say such stupid things? You're smarter than this.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

HIV rates aren't indicative of the success of safe sex programs.

Locking up criminals to protect the rest of us is dangerous logic.

DUde, you're a loon. Really. WHy do you say such stupid things? You're smarter than this.

Good job, that's precisely NOT what I said. Continuing your trend of imagining someone to debate against who better conflicts your views.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good job, that's precisely NOT what I said. Continuing your trend of imagining someone to debate against who better conflicts your views.

Right. Backtrack. You DID say both those things. Tell me what you REALLY SAID then.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Right. Backtrack. You DID say both those things. Tell me what you REALLY SAID then.

I said:
HIV rates aren't the sole measure as to whether the safe sex message has been a success...

You interpretted:
HIV rates aren't indicative of the success of safe sex programs.

My point was:
Just looking at HIV rates doesn't indicate whether the safe sex message was successful. There are other factors besides HIV.

Your mistake:
Thinking that I said HIV rates are not indicative of the success of safe sex programs. I was saying they're not the only indicator.

I said:
Yes, the more people you lock up, the less chance you have of stumbling across a criminal. That's dangerous logic, in my mind. The justice system in this country is failing, and just like you complain about the safe sex message repeating itself, you just want to continue down the same path and build more prisons to imprison more people. There are other ways of dealing with crime other than prosecuting everyone.

You interpretted:
Locking up criminals to protect the rest of us is dangerous logic.

My point was:
You can just lock everyone up and society will be crime-free. Locking up people in record numbers hasn't really done much other than cost tax payers tons of money. There are alternative ways to lower the criminal population that will ultimately save the public money and actually rehabillitate some criminals.

Your mistake:
Thinking that I didn't want criminals to be punished and implying that I wanted criminals to roam free and leave us less safe.

 

[KarlMarx]

HIV rates aren't the sole measure as to whether the safe sex message has been a success...

OK, what is? The infection rate for other diseases has also gone up.

Yes, the more people you lock up, the less chance you have of stumbling across a criminal. That's dangerous logic, in my mind. The justice system in this country is failing, and just like you complain about the safe sex message repeating itself, you just want to continue down the same path and build more prisons to imprison more people. There are other ways of dealing with crime other than prosecuting everyone.

You are implying that the "trial by jury" system incarcerates innocent people. On rare occassions, yes, that is true, but not most of the time. Also, I doubt that most of the people serving time in prisons are there for minor offenses (for instance, in New York State and, my guess, most other states, marijuana possession is a misdemeanor, not a felony). Perhaps the reason that prison populations are increasing so dramatically is that more criminals are being caught, prosecuted, convicted and put where they really do belong... behind bars.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

OK, what is? The infection rate for other diseases has also gone up.

How about teen pregnancies?

You are implying that the "trial by jury" system incarcerates innocent people. On rare occassions, yes, that is true, but not most of the time. Also, I doubt that most of the people serving time in prisons are there for minor offenses (for instance, in New York State and, my guess, most other states, marijuana possession is a misdemeanor, not a felony). Perhaps the reason that prison populations are increasing so dramatically is that more criminals are being caught, prosecuted, convicted and put where they really do belong... behind bars.

I'm implying that the system could be changed so that far less people commit crime so that far less people need to be incarcerated. Most importantly, approaching the drug problem in this country from a criminal perspective instead of a public health perspective is perhaps the biggest reason the prisons are so strained. It's the reason rehabilitation programs are cut so that more prisons can be built without increasing tax rates.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

How about teen pregnancies?




I'm implying that the system could be changed so that far less people commit crime so that far less people need to be incarcerated. Most importantly, approaching the drug problem in this country from a criminal perspective instead of a public health perspective is perhaps the biggest reason the prisons are so strained. It's the reason rehabilitation programs are cut so that more prisons can be built without increasing tax rates.

Yeah. Legalize drugs, less crime. Voila. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. And if we legalize murder we'll have even less crime!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah. Legalize drugs, less crime. Voila. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. And if we legalize murder we'll have even less crime!

It's the same thing with you over and over... is your chin bruised from so much knee-jerking?

You don't legalize drugs and then just clean your hands of it. It's not about legalization anyways; it's about the approach. Right now, the government spends all it's time and effort trying to stifle drug smuggling into the country. Cutting off the supply does nothing but empower someone else to provide the supply. People think that if we lock up enough drug dealers, eventually there won't be any left. That's absurd. You have to approach drugs from the demand side, so that there is no market for the supplier.

And yes, if you legalize drugs, I think after a couple years of transition, crime rates (non-drug offenses) will go down, but only if drugs begin to become a public health issue first, much like alcohol and tobacco.

If you legalize murder, the murder rate will not go down, it will go up.

So yes, if you made everything legal, there would be no "illegal" activity, but people would still rob, rape, and murder. If the drug issue in this country would be properly addressed, you would have less robbing, less raping, and less murdering. Do you not agree?

 

[Avatar4321]

It's the same thing with you over and over... is your chin bruised from so much knee-jerking?

You don't legalize drugs and then just clean your hands of it. It's not about legalization anyways; it's about the approach. Right now, the government spends all it's time and effort trying to stifle drug smuggling into the country. Cutting off the supply does nothing but empower someone else to provide the supply. People think that if we lock up enough drug dealers, eventually there won't be any left. That's absurd. You have to approach drugs from the demand side, so that there is no market for the supplier.

And yes, if you legalize drugs, I think after a couple years of transition, crime rates (non-drug offenses) will go down, but only if drugs begin to become a public health issue first, much like alcohol and tobacco.

If you legalize murder, the murder rate will not go down, it will go up.

So yes, if you made everything legal, there would be no "illegal" activity, but people would still rob, rape, and murder. If the drug issue in this country would be properly addressed, you would have less robbing, less raping, and less murdering. Do you not agree?

Your reasoning is flawed

You are trying to say that legalizing drugs will create a decrease in crime while legalizing murder will lead to an increase in murder. Your arguments arent consistant. It wouldnt matter if legalizing murder lead to an increase in murder any more than it would if legalizing drugs lead to an increase in drug use. Crime would still go down. Because neither murder nor drug use would be a crime.

The fact is if you legalize drug use, people will use drugs more. That would be bad for society. The drug use would produce the same effects whether its against the law or not. Only more people would end up frying their brains and ruining their lives than if it was criminalized.

Yeah crimes might decrease. But the consequences of those now unpunished crimes will get dramatically worse because it will effect more people and society will have given itself permission to overdose without criminal consequences.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Your reasoning is flawed

You are trying to say that legalizing drugs will create a decrease in crime while legalizing murder will lead to an increase in murder. Your arguments arent consistant. It wouldnt matter if legalizing murder lead to an increase in murder any more than it would if legalizing drugs lead to an increase in drug use. Crime would still go down. Because neither murder nor drug use would be a crime.

The fact is if you legalize drug use, people will use drugs more. That would be bad for society. The drug use would produce the same effects whether its against the law or not. Only more people would end up frying their brains and ruining their lives than if it was criminalized.

Yeah crimes might decrease. But the consequences of those now unpunished crimes will get dramatically worse because it will effect more people and society will have given itself permission to overdose without criminal consequences.

My reasoning is flawed to you because you're ignoring part of it. You need to approach drugs as a public health issue so that ABUSE goes down. Yes, overall usage will increase, but with proper education, abuse goes down.

My point about murder is, if you make murder legal, there will be more murder, so you're not accomplishing your goal of trying to reduce murder.

If you were to legalize drugs and have a good public health policy on them instituted, you would accomplish your goal of lowering crime. Drug use would go up, drug abuse would go down, and crimes, especially drug-related crime such as drug dealer shoot-outs and all that bullshit, would virtually disappear.

If you just made every druge legal and continued as this country operates today, it would be absolute chaos. You are correct. That's not what I am advocating.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I said:
HIV rates aren't the sole measure as to whether the safe sex message has been a success...

You interpretted:
HIV rates aren't indicative of the success of safe sex programs.

My point was:
Just looking at HIV rates doesn't indicate whether the safe sex message was successful. There are other factors besides HIV.

Your mistake:
Thinking that I said HIV rates are not indicative of the success of safe sex programs. I was saying they're not the only indicator.

I said:
Yes, the more people you lock up, the less chance you have of stumbling across a criminal. That's dangerous logic, in my mind. The justice system in this country is failing, and just like you complain about the safe sex message repeating itself, you just want to continue down the same path and build more prisons to imprison more people. There are other ways of dealing with crime other than prosecuting everyone.

You interpretted:
Locking up criminals to protect the rest of us is dangerous logic.

My point was:
You can just lock everyone up and society will be crime-free. Locking up people in record numbers hasn't really done much other than cost tax payers tons of money. There are alternative ways to lower the criminal population that will ultimately save the public money and actually rehabillitate some criminals.

Your mistake:
Thinking that I didn't want criminals to be punished and implying that I wanted criminals to roam free and leave us less safe.

First of all, sex education was started in many Federally funded venues directly targeted to prevent AIDS, yet the HIV rate keeps rising. So you say HIV rates aren't the only indicator, and all you can say is teen pregnancies? Where is your mind, man? Time to get off your favorite drug.

Then you say there are "other ways" of dealing with crime than prosecuting people but you don't mention any other way that is actually effective. You say locking up people is dangerous logic. Let me ask you: if someone broke into your house, robbed you blind, stole your car, and raped your daughter and killed your son, would you try to find some "other way" of dealing with the criminal? Forgive him and let him live with you while you pay for his therapy? How do you deal with reality?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

First of all, sex education was started in many Federally funded venues directly targeted to prevent AIDS, yet the HIV rate keeps rising. So you say HIV rates aren't the only indicator, and all you can say is teen pregnancies? Where is your mind, man? Time to get off your favorite drug.

Then you say there are "other ways" of dealing with crime than prosecuting people but you don't mention any other way that is actually effective. You say locking up people is dangerous logic. Let me ask you: if someone broke into your house, robbed you blind, stole your car, and raped your daughter and killed your son, would you try to find some "other way" of dealing with the criminal? Forgive him and let him live with you while you pay for his therapy? How do you deal with reality?

In addition to reading my posts, try comprehending them. You're drawing all sorts of conclusions that I am not, and half of them I've already refuted. Are you going to follow me to all my threads because I didn't like your post somewhere else?