<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Aug 30 2004, 06:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Aug 30 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...I don't mean to offend with any of this - I am just passionate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To begin with , your opinions might offend certain people - more so if you're passionate in promoting them. It's not your fault , but keep that in mind...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lets take evolution - one of my favorites <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->? It is still a Theory, and should be taught as such - with alternative "theories" also taught (read creation).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. It is taught as the most plausible <i>rational</i> theory , and so far it's the only theory that's worth teaching in a biology classroom. The creation theory has to be taught as well , but in the religious instruction classroom , because it relies on the existence of god - something that can't be assumed in a science classroom. *cowardly hides behind the no Evolution vs Creation debate rule <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sexual education - lets not teach a moral standpoint (abstenance) but lets tell 15 year olds it is OK to explore - this propogates the tean pregnancy rate - feeds into the welfare / give money to single mom's problem.? If our society is really concerned about being equal and helping the unfortunate, why doesn't it teach people how to not be unfortunate (don't have sex, you won't have kids, you won't be a single mom).? That seems totally logical to me - but our education system doesn't have the power to do that.? Why?? It is funded by the government, and the government can't take a moral position.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes , it can. Public schools teach you the moral principles implemented in your Constitution. The government has the power to add or change teachings (the federal one and/or the state's , not sure which has the most) , like it was shown when some of the states ensured Creation was taught as an alternative theory to Evolution.
If you think that abstinence is a "moral standpoint" (much like "masturbation is bad") then indeed the school doesn't have to teach thoses. AFAIK , current sexual education doesn't promote procreating (unlike some religions) , but does promote contraception , and the means of it. Abstinence is the most obvious mean of contraception , but better ones are put forward. If , after being given a decent and neutral sexual education , teens don't use any mean of contraception , it's their fault.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another tied in problem is that it severly cramps the education oportunities of these single moms.? It is hard to work, raise a kid, and go to school (college), so High School is often as far as they will go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well , maybe it's because they have to work to survive with a kid ? They might perform better at school with a bit of financial help...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->High School doesn't teach them the consequences of their actions<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if parents forgot about this critical part of their children's education , it won't be easy for them to have a social life anyway...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It teaches them that the government will look after them when they screw up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thsss... I doubt you can back up that statement with facts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, the tax intrusion isn't worth it.? I would rather take my tax money and send my kid (when I have one) to a school where they will be taught Values and Morals along with the 3R's (yes, I know, they are not all spelled with R's).? I don't want to have to spend <b>my</b> money to support "<b>Their</b>" kid to get a bad education.? That money is better spent elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on , if you have the money to send your kid to a private school instead of a public one , then you should have enough to spare for other's kids to prevent them from being totally illiterate really... there's a simple reason no government ever paid the private schools bills to promote an alternative to public school : it would be way too expensive...
And who are you to say your Values and Morals are any better than thoses taught in public schools ? Since koranic schools "educated" (teaching the hate of the western world) a good part of the terrorists we hear about nowadays , I'm not trusting other private schools to gift the world with open minded kids...
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 30 2004, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 30 2004, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't seem to understand my point - I'm not criticizing the actions of the US soldiers , but the way the government recruits impoverished people to use them as expendable soldiers. Now , WWII soldiers didn't mind dying for a great cause (even if thoses landings could have been prepared a little better) , but I understand the bitterness of US soldiers in Iraq who feel betrayed by their government (costly and unjust war) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe you shouldn't learn everything you know about US army recruiters from F. 9/11...
I don't know if you do it on purpose or not but you keep speaking about our military system as if we were sending thousands of our lower class people into torrents of machine gun fire everyday. Our soldiers are hardly "expendable" and all of our troops are given equal and good equipment, I don't know where you got these notions.
I also know many troops personally who are nether bitter or angry over the war in Iraq, but you know what they say war is hell, and they knew what they were signing up for.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 30 2004, 01:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 30 2004, 01:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, the tax intrusion isn't worth it. I would rather take my tax money and send my kid (when I have one) to a school where they will be taught Values and Morals along with the 3R's (yes, I know, they are not all spelled with R's). I don't want to have to spend <b>my</b> money to support "<b>Their</b>" kid to get a bad education. That money is better spent elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on , if you have the money to send your kid to a private school instead of a public one , then you should have enough to spare for other's kids to prevent them from being totally illiterate really... there's a simple reason no government ever paid the private schools bills to promote an alternative to public school : it would be way too expensive... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't want to debate the rest of your post - there are plenty of other debates on the subjectivity / absolute qualityies of morality.
This part is interesting though. <b>It doesn't matter if I have enough to spare </b>(which I don't). The government should not have the right to take it from me. It is my hard earned money, I disagree with the education they are getting, why should I be forced to support it? Many parents make huge sacrifices in order to send their kids to private schools. They don't go out and get drunk on weekends and send their kids to "free" school - No, they work hard and save and send them to a place for good education.
As for the expensive part - that is total balloney. Any task the government tries to do costs substantially more than the same task given to the private sector. Apply this to public schools - and it costs a lot more to teach a kid in a public school than it does to teach the same kid in a private school. The only difference is one is Tax dollars and the other comes from the parrents. Not to mention you have to deal with every other lousy parrents kids disrupting classes with no medium to discipline them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Aug 30 2004, 01:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Aug 30 2004, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This part is interesting though. <b>It doesn't matter if I have enough to spare </b>(which I don't). The government should not have the right to take it from me. It is my hard earned money, I disagree with the education they are getting, why should I be forced to support it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Except the government provides the environment in which your employer can conduct business and give you your paycheck. You can't participate in society half-way, get your money, and then not give back to the same society that provided you the opportunity to earn that money. If you don't want to function in society like a normal person you can go live in the hills of Montana with the fundamentalist nut jobs and not pay taxes all you like.
Pepe is exactly right. It isnt the responsibility of anyone but the legal guardians of a child to pay for his/her education. It is in no way at all connected to the well off family who decides it'd be best to send their children to private schools...socialism sucks.
And for those of you who are saying rude/unjust things about American soldiers, you're no better than the hippies/liberals who spit on the 'nam vets when they got home.
<!--QuoteBegin-[WWJD]JesusC+Aug 30 2004, 03:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WWJD]JesusC @ Aug 30 2004, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Aug 30 2004, 01:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Aug 30 2004, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This part is interesting though. <b>It doesn't matter if I have enough to spare </b>(which I don't). The government should not have the right to take it from me. It is my hard earned money, I disagree with the education they are getting, why should I be forced to support it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except the government provides the environment in which your employer can conduct business and give you your paycheck. You can't participate in society half-way, get your money, and then not give back to the same society that provided you the opportunity to earn that money. If you don't want to function in society like a normal person you can go live in the hills of Montana with the fundamentalist nut jobs and not pay taxes all you like. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, misquote allert. I am talking specifically of the Education system - not governments role in general.
Lets put it in these terms. There is a service out there - lets say Paypal. You don't use it, you disagree with their terms of use, you even pay extra to use their competitions service. Yet every week money is subtracted from your paycheck, or taxed to your land to pay for this service - so that other people can use it for free.
That is how I see our education system.
Concerning the other taxes - yes, I love my nice roads, I love my safety, the government does a lot for me. Do I want them in charge of educating my children? Absolutely not.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Aug 30 2004, 07:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Aug 30 2004, 07:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Excuse me to go off topic (Eggmac covered pretty much everything , anyway) , but I won't tolerate personal attacks with low blows.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stakhanov, I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain the difference between being a prostitute and a soldier. Next time I see a veteran I'll be sure to call him a whor3 though, especially those that whor3d themselves off to Europe to save your little country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it too much to ask , to have the smallest bit of good will when arguing ? I criticized the fact that soldiers entered the military because they were jobless/in need of money , not because they accept to die. WWII soldiers obviously had better reasons to join the military , than live comfortably after the bloodiest war is over. They fought for their country's and their allie's freedom. I'm not even blaming the capitalistic society for the Vietnam's bloodshed , the thousands of new volunteers bought the state's propaganda that this war would determine humankind's future. But hundreds of young people from the slums were lured into the Army by hearing of durable job opportunities and free studies. The war in Iraq was claimed to be a fast , "clean" war using modern technology to have little to no casualties , yet theses people were used as cannon fodder. No wonder soldiers like Brandon Hu*** didn't like being fooled and treated like expendable prostitutes.
Note that I consider prostitutes as victims , it's not a shame to be a prostitute per se , but our capitalistic society makes it shameful while encouraging it. Advanced countries like Sweden chose to put an end to hypocrisy and punish the prostitute's clients , but they're rare.
Marine , though you hardly deserve my not so precious spare time , know that no matter how bad people can flame me for my opinions , I'd never abandon my set of morals for yours. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Marine uses low blows when his frivolous attempts at swaying your opinion are smitten.
Please think balance. As much as I want a perfect Capitalist society, it isn't plausible to have one that is 100 %. In the environment that exists today, the government should provide some basic sources of things like education, but should also allow the choice of charter schools. That to me is a more than acceptable compromise, and it forces the standards to be raised in all schools.
Stak, you are obviously referring to the peacetime method of recruiting for the military, which is "job training, college money!" How else is the military supposed to keep its ranks filled? As the terrorism threat increased, the military image became more macho and badass, assuming its more wartime recruiting strategies.
Stak, do you realize that the military will not even <b>look</b> at you as a potential candidate if you have any type of drug offense, or if you don't carry at least a high school diploma? Basic point, they're into hiring quality people for service.
Also realize we've lost less than a thousand men. In Vietnam we lost over 50,000. So, 50 times <i>less</i> soldiers have been lost in this so called "war," which itself was pretty clean. It's the nation building part that is killing off soldiers, because soldiers aren't great at nation building.
On another point Stak, you do realize that the N.E.A., which is the major organization strictly involved with teaching, constantly promotes an increasingly liberal viewpoint taught in public classrooms. So, the N.E.A. has been slowly but surely shifting the content of classes to the left.
"Look how bad America is" "Americans don't have culture" "America is ignorant"
I could go down the list of subtle messages that are shoved down American kid's throats every day of class, but it would take too long. Note *subtle*. Having just graduated from high school, it's very easy to see the curriculum imbalance in many schools. The majority of teachers lean left, even if they won't come right out and shove it down their student's throats.
....
Public Education, while an important factor of today's society, and certainly something that should not be abandoned, needs to be more balanced.
Balance.
It's something that people in this thread need to consider before they continue flaming at each other.
Nothing should ever be taken at 100%, that even goes for great systems like Capitalism. There needs to be checks and balances so that the Industrial Revolution or something similar, doesn't repeat itself.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 04:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine uses low blows when his frivolous attempts at swaying your opinion are smitten. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey it was low, so I feel that having a go at me over it is more than justified. But lets not have any rubbish about me making attempts to chance other peoples opinions - I learnt a long, long time ago that absolutely no one is going to change their ideas. Any attempts to do so are smitten, by the brick wall of obstinancy, that is as strong with me as it is with everyone else.
Instead, I've taken another tack. I will continue arguing in order to maintain my knowledge of the strongest arguements that my left wing friends have to offer, but rather than trying to convince them of the dangers of their beliefs, I will simply oppose them in any way I can.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure, only when cornered when most the conservatives only have rhetoric to begin with <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa, didnt see this. I certainly hope you're not refering to me there - I pack plenty of rhetoric its true, but I'm also the quickest to follow it up with an arguement/linkage if challenged. Isnt it hard to accuse people of having nothing but rhetoric when you are the master of the 1 liner reply?
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Aug 30 2004, 10:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Aug 30 2004, 10:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pepe is exactly right. It isnt the responsibility of anyone but the legal guardians of a child to pay for his/her education. It is in no way at all connected to the well off family who decides it'd be best to send their children to private schools...socialism sucks.
And for those of you who are saying rude/unjust things about American soldiers, you're no better than the hippies/liberals who spit on the 'nam vets when they got home. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Unjust things? How do you know that..?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, only when cornered when most the conservatives only have rhetoric to begin with <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, only when cornered when most the conservatives only have rhetoric to begin with <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 07:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 07:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, only when cornered when most the conservatives only have rhetoric to begin with <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, it would have been ironic if I mentioned that <u>all</u> wannabe communists were full of angst.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 31 2004, 07:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 31 2004, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 07:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 07:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, only when cornered when most the conservatives only have rhetoric to begin with <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, it would have been ironic if I mentioned that <u>all</u> wannabe communists were full of angst. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its good enough to say it, especially making allegations against someone you have no idea about and are defending a destructive ideal to the death over the internet. Hehe
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78799' target='_blank'>Take some notes</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Sep 1 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 1 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 31 2004, 07:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 31 2004, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 07:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 07:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Aug 31 2004, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Aug 31 2004, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, only when cornered when most the conservatives only have rhetoric to begin with <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, it would have been ironic if I mentioned that <u>all</u> wannabe communists were full of angst. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its good enough to say it, especially making allegations against someone you have no idea about and are defending a destructive ideal to the death over the internet. Hehe
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78799' target='_blank'>Take some notes</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You dont like being called angsty - yet you call for the slaughter of the entire upper class of America? If thats your happy day I'd hate to see you after an hour of linkin park.
Isnt that post a textbook example of rhetoric anyway - specifically "defending a destructive ideal to the death over the internet."
If it were my choice I would not have them killed. Just sent to a labor camp to understand what they did to their "employees" (PS: Linkin park is just about the worst band ever, fyi.)
This is not a debate about who has the most propaganda, or whose mind is made of more mush. This is a discussion about our society and it's socialist trends - are they good or bad. Are they just or unjust. Lets bring this away from insults and hurt feelings back to issues that can be debated.
I for one am against socialism - not because I think that it is bad, more because I think it is impossible. In order for true socialism to occur, you have to take "greed" out of everyone.
It is human nature to want to have things. Capitalism rewards those who work hard (or smart) with more "things". Socialism rewards those who don't work.
Now, I'm not saying that all socialists are lazy. I am saying that the socialist system promotes a poor work ethic, while at the same time punishing those who work hard (through heavier taxes). As a result, government is bigger and more cumbersome, and it becomes a "parrent" government, providing almost everything for it's population.
Capitalism on the other hand leaves less room for people to abuse the system. Hard work is rewarded with more money. That allows the person to buy their own health care / education, etc. as opposed to relying on the government for those services. The advantage to this is simple - anything the government does costs more than the same service from the private sector. There is less waste and a greater emphasis on competition / lower prices / greater efficiency.
So there you have it - capitalism agrees more with how people are - greedy. Until everyone gives that up, there is little point in being a socialist.
CWAG, exactly what "destuctive ideal" are you referring to? If it's capitalism, you've just shown to everyone here that you have no idea what you're talking about or how real people think and work. If you did, you wouldn't be spouting off communist rhetoric.
I can agree with the one who said that nothing should be taken 100%.
If socialsm was 0 and and captialism was 100. I would prefer to live in a society that has a value of 30 to 35.
Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life.
<!--QuoteBegin-BlindFire+Aug 31 2004, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlindFire @ Aug 31 2004, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can agree with the one who said that nothing should be taken 100%.
If socialsm was 0 and and captialism was 100. I would prefer to live in a society that has a value of 30 to 35.
Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> and why is that?
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Aug 31 2004, 01:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Aug 31 2004, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CWAG, exactly what "destuctive ideal" are you referring to? If it's capitalism, you've just shown to everyone here that you have no idea what you're talking about or how real people think and work. If you did, you wouldn't be spouting off communist rhetoric. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> the neo-conservative movement.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Aug 31 2004, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 31 2004, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and why is that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Becouse it would work better then pure anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-BlindFire+Aug 31 2004, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlindFire @ Aug 31 2004, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can agree with the one who said that nothing should be taken 100%.
If socialsm was 0 and and captialism was 100. I would prefer to live in a society that has a value of 30 to 35.
Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If someone never works (and I'm not talking about the impaired), why should I support them? To what extent should I support them? Do they get cable television? Do they get a TV at all? Why should they get a "GOOD" education when they aren't going to use it?
NO - if a person is butt lazy, they should get 0, zip, nadda.
In terms of public education, I think there should be an opt out option - or at least a redirection of my money to a school of my choice.
Here is another analogy.
Public school is like Cable TV, except you have to pay for it every month. It is a service. It costs money. But I never watch the programming. I moraly disagree with the programming. Yet I still have to pay for the programming. And there is no way to get out of it.
Except that school can pretty much decide your future for you. Contact me when you find a job that depends on how much cable TV you have watched.
And if a person is butt lazy, I have never heard of anyone that is so lazy that they would never work if they could (with the exception of some rich people that gets more then nearly anybody else without working).
In sweden we have this system that means you need to work at least 6 straight months before you get any money from anything, it works.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany Raises 2004 Deficit Forecast to 3.7% of GDP (Update3)
Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Germany raised its forecast for this year's budget deficit, saying declining tax income and increased spending on the unemployed will push the shortfall further beyond European Union limits for a third straight year.
The deficit will reach 3.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, compared with a previous forecast of 3.25 percent published half a year ago and the EU limit of 3 percent. The budget shortfall totaled 3.9 percent of GDP in 2003.
``Three years of economic stagnation across Europe continue to have an effect on our budget,'' Finance Minister Hans Eichel, 62, said in a statement e-mailed to news organizations. ``The government budget is affected particularly strongly by tax shortfalls and additional costs for the labor market.''
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government is heading for a record postwar deficit even as the economy shows signs of recovery, the Bundesbank said two weeks ago. Eichel's announcement comes two days before the European Commission is scheduled to propose easing the budget rules to spur economic growth.
Schroeder is failing to keep spending down as labor-market changes and welfare cuts are not yet yielding savings. This year's budget will also have to cope with a shortfall of about 3.3 billion euros ($4 billion) caused by a drop in Bundesbank profit last year, Eichel said.
The Bundesbank said the 2004 deficit may exceed last year's 39 billion euros ($47.3 billion) and the 1996 record of 40.1 billion euros. Government tax revenue fell 15.6 percent in July.
Eichel said the government is still aiming to keep the deficit under the EU limit of 3 percent of GDP next year ``on the basis of a sustained economic recovery over the course of 2005.''
`Acceptable'
Germany's persistent budget shortfalls will swell the country's debt to 66 percent of GDP in 2004, further above the EU's limit of 60 percent, Eichel said. He said the failure to keep to the EU budget rules is ``acceptable'' for Germany's economy, which has yet to show a rebound in domestic growth.
Government economic adviser Peter Bofinger said Eichel may not meet his target of cutting the deficit to within the EU limit next year.
``The government's deficit forecasts are extremely dubious,'' said Bofinger, 49, in a telephone interview. Domestic demand, damped by Schroeder's jobless benefit cuts, remains ``frighteningly undynamic,'' while exports had their first drop in four months in June, Bofinger said. ``This implies a heavy burden for next year's outlook.''
Debt and Demography
Revised EU budget rules to be proposed Friday will give more leeway to ``countries with low debt levels and fewer demographic problems,'' Klaus Regling, head of the commission's economics department, told a European Parliament committee in Brussels today.
Germany and France, which account for half of the $8.5 trillion economy of the 12 nations using the euro, forced the EU to overhaul the fiscal ``stability pact'' when they snubbed commission demands to cut their deficits last year.
European growth slumped to a 10-year low of 0.4 percent in 2003, and the EU will remain the world's economic laggard in 2004, with growth of 1.7 percent trailing rates of 4.2 percent in the U.S. and 3.4 percent in Japan, the commission predicts.
Germany designed the pact to boost confidence in the euro by forcing governments to keep their deficits down. Italy, the Netherlands, Greece and Portugal will join Germany and France in breaking the deficit limit in 2004, the commission predicts.
On Friday, Regling said, the commission will propose giving countries like France, with debt of 63 percent of GDP, more budget leeway than Italy, with debt of 106 percent.
`More Flexible'
``There will be no general weakening of the stability and growth pact,'' said Regling, a German Finance Ministry official in the previous center-right government. ``Certain reforms will make the pact more flexible, but also tougher.''
The rules would be stiffened by requiring governments to do more to curb spending during phases of economic growth, an EU official told journalists. The objective of balanced budgets in the ``medium term'' for all countries will be replaced by country- by-country guidelines, the official said.
``The pact should be applied more symmetrically over the cycle,'' Dutch Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm, current chairman of the panel of EU finance ministers, told the committee. The rules ``will be tougher on the upswing.''
In previewing the proposals, Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said on June 24 that governments should also be rewarded for ``structural reforms'' such as selling state assets, fixing pension systems and investing in innovation.
EU finance ministers hold sway over the stability pact and will discuss the proposals at a meeting Sept. 10-11 in The Hague. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that this is coincidental. Unemployed people in Europe are more likely to stay unemployed for longer periods of time than those in the United States. Unemployed people don't produce, be it a service or an actual material product, and consequently become a drain on the economy. So much so that it's causing Germany to exceed the limits that the EU set.
I think it's a good article and relevant to this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But <i>why</i> should health care be free? How exactly can you make it "free?" Medicines and equipment have to come from somewhere and doctors and nurses need to be sufficiently compensated to make the profession worthwhile. There's actually a nursing shortage because the compensation that nurses get isn't adequate for the work that they do. The funding for such a thing would have to come from taxes.
Education is a little different. "Good" is a pretty subjective thing, as my conversation with Pepe no doubt illustrated. The public school system is a good idea, in my opinion, even if it does need to be worked over so schools have better ways of dealing with troublesome students. I think that saying "everybody" deserves a good education is a slippery slope, because then you're stuck with people disrupting classes and so forth. I think that there needs to be more people pushing for private schools. If they were as numerous as public schools, the competition could drive down tuition prices to something similiar to what it costs to educate in a public school (~$10,000/yr.).
The problem with your last part is that people who don't produce still consume. As the article shows, people who remain unemployed for long periods of time drive up debt and decrease productivity. Europe has had higher unemployment than the U.S. for the past two decades and at least part of that is the cushy benefits that the unemployed get. Mooching off of the government, and consequently your fellow citizens, hurts the economy and causes stagnation. The best way to stop it is to simply disallow mooching.
<!--QuoteBegin-BlindFire+Aug 31 2004, 02:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlindFire @ Aug 31 2004, 02:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Except that school can pretty much decide your future for you. Contact me when you find a job that depends on how much cable TV you have watched.
And if a person is butt lazy, I have never heard of anyone that is so lazy that they would never work if they could (with the exception of some rich people that gets more then nearly anybody else without working).
In sweden we have this system that means you need to work at least 6 straight months before you get any money from anything, it works. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> here in the U.S., your high school diploma is worth jack squat in the working world. You have about as many options as an illegal immigrant who can't speak English, and a lot of times they get hired because they work for less, and because of so called 'equal-opportunity' laws.
everyone knows that secondary education is where it's at. Primary education is nice, yes, but hardly worth the effort. The amount of money spent by the feds on the educational system is paltry, most of it comes from state and city (property) taxes. I'd rather not pay them a good chunk of my salary for them to blow on God-knows-what and give us crappy, overregulated, underachieving schools.
If you've ever been in a poor school (and I have), you'll understand that the reason they underperform isn't because they don't have enough money - although some of them truly do lack it - it's because most of the students don't set a priority on the education. Why should I pay for them to clown around in class, to insult the teacher to the point where she quits her job after 10 years, to end up flunking out and to be held back to leech another year? And guess what, when they inevitably drop out, they leech some more off of welfare, while having kids they can't afford. <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Ive heard some nightmare stories about Public schools in the US. It needs improvement that much I can say.
Secondary education may matter in sweden, but it depends entirely on what kind of work you are aiming for. A doctor needs secondary education, but to even be allowed in to that education you pretty much need to score an average of 20 in primary education (that is top grades in every subject, and Ive heard that the top grade in sweden has harder requirements then an A+ in the USA, but dont quote me on that one).
No one should be denied as good healthcare as possible for any reason. No event like disease or an accident should destroy ones life, it is off cource not always be preventible but when it is it should be done. Id say the taxes we pay for that is worth it.
Oh and I will rephrase the school one: Everyone should have the right for a chance to good education. If they are too distruptive and sush they should be dealt with, but not denied education altogether.
Comments
To begin with , your opinions might offend certain people - more so if you're passionate in promoting them. It's not your fault , but keep that in mind...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lets take evolution - one of my favorites <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->? It is still a Theory, and should be taught as such - with alternative "theories" also taught (read creation).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. It is taught as the most plausible <i>rational</i> theory , and so far it's the only theory that's worth teaching in a biology classroom. The creation theory has to be taught as well , but in the religious instruction classroom , because it relies on the existence of god - something that can't be assumed in a science classroom.
*cowardly hides behind the no Evolution vs Creation debate rule <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sexual education - lets not teach a moral standpoint (abstenance) but lets tell 15 year olds it is OK to explore - this propogates the tean pregnancy rate - feeds into the welfare / give money to single mom's problem.? If our society is really concerned about being equal and helping the unfortunate, why doesn't it teach people how to not be unfortunate (don't have sex, you won't have kids, you won't be a single mom).? That seems totally logical to me - but our education system doesn't have the power to do that.? Why?? It is funded by the government, and the government can't take a moral position.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes , it can. Public schools teach you the moral principles implemented in your Constitution. The government has the power to add or change teachings (the federal one and/or the state's , not sure which has the most) , like it was shown when some of the states ensured Creation was taught as an alternative theory to Evolution.
If you think that abstinence is a "moral standpoint" (much like "masturbation is bad") then indeed the school doesn't have to teach thoses. AFAIK , current sexual education doesn't promote procreating (unlike some religions) , but does promote contraception , and the means of it. Abstinence is the most obvious mean of contraception , but better ones are put forward. If , after being given a decent and neutral sexual education , teens don't use any mean of contraception , it's their fault.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another tied in problem is that it severly cramps the education oportunities of these single moms.? It is hard to work, raise a kid, and go to school (college), so High School is often as far as they will go. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well , maybe it's because they have to work to survive with a kid ? They might perform better at school with a bit of financial help...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->High School doesn't teach them the consequences of their actions<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well if parents forgot about this critical part of their children's education , it won't be easy for them to have a social life anyway...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It teaches them that the government will look after them when they screw up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thsss... I doubt you can back up that statement with facts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, the tax intrusion isn't worth it.? I would rather take my tax money and send my kid (when I have one) to a school where they will be taught Values and Morals along with the 3R's (yes, I know, they are not all spelled with R's).? I don't want to have to spend <b>my</b> money to support "<b>Their</b>" kid to get a bad education.? That money is better spent elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on , if you have the money to send your kid to a private school instead of a public one , then you should have enough to spare for other's kids to prevent them from being totally illiterate really... there's a simple reason no government ever paid the private schools bills to promote an alternative to public school : it would be way too expensive...
And who are you to say your Values and Morals are any better than thoses taught in public schools ? Since koranic schools "educated" (teaching the hate of the western world) a good part of the terrorists we hear about nowadays , I'm not trusting other private schools to gift the world with open minded kids...
Maybe you shouldn't learn everything you know about US army recruiters from F. 9/11...
I don't know if you do it on purpose or not but you keep speaking about our military system as if we were sending thousands of our lower class people into torrents of machine gun fire everyday. Our soldiers are hardly "expendable" and all of our troops are given equal and good equipment, I don't know where you got these notions.
I also know many troops personally who are nether bitter or angry over the war in Iraq, but you know what they say war is hell, and they knew what they were signing up for.
Come on , if you have the money to send your kid to a private school instead of a public one , then you should have enough to spare for other's kids to prevent them from being totally illiterate really... there's a simple reason no government ever paid the private schools bills to promote an alternative to public school : it would be way too expensive...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to debate the rest of your post - there are plenty of other debates on the subjectivity / absolute qualityies of morality.
This part is interesting though. <b>It doesn't matter if I have enough to spare </b>(which I don't). The government should not have the right to take it from me. It is my hard earned money, I disagree with the education they are getting, why should I be forced to support it?
Many parents make huge sacrifices in order to send their kids to private schools. They don't go out and get drunk on weekends and send their kids to "free" school - No, they work hard and save and send them to a place for good education.
As for the expensive part - that is total balloney. Any task the government tries to do costs substantially more than the same task given to the private sector. Apply this to public schools - and it costs a lot more to teach a kid in a public school than it does to teach the same kid in a private school. The only difference is one is Tax dollars and the other comes from the parrents. Not to mention you have to deal with every other lousy parrents kids disrupting classes with no medium to discipline them.
Except the government provides the environment in which your employer can conduct business and give you your paycheck. You can't participate in society half-way, get your money, and then not give back to the same society that provided you the opportunity to earn that money. If you don't want to function in society like a normal person you can go live in the hills of Montana with the fundamentalist nut jobs and not pay taxes all you like.
And for those of you who are saying rude/unjust things about American soldiers, you're no better than the hippies/liberals who spit on the 'nam vets when they got home.
Except the government provides the environment in which your employer can conduct business and give you your paycheck. You can't participate in society half-way, get your money, and then not give back to the same society that provided you the opportunity to earn that money. If you don't want to function in society like a normal person you can go live in the hills of Montana with the fundamentalist nut jobs and not pay taxes all you like. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, misquote allert. I am talking specifically of the Education system - not governments role in general.
Lets put it in these terms. There is a service out there - lets say Paypal. You don't use it, you disagree with their terms of use, you even pay extra to use their competitions service. Yet every week money is subtracted from your paycheck, or taxed to your land to pay for this service - so that other people can use it for free.
That is how I see our education system.
Concerning the other taxes - yes, I love my nice roads, I love my safety, the government does a lot for me. Do I want them in charge of educating my children? Absolutely not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stakhanov, I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain the difference between being a prostitute and a soldier. Next time I see a veteran I'll be sure to call him a whor3 though, especially those that whor3d themselves off to Europe to save your little country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it too much to ask , to have the smallest bit of good will when arguing ? I criticized the fact that soldiers entered the military because they were jobless/in need of money , not because they accept to die. WWII soldiers obviously had better reasons to join the military , than live comfortably after the bloodiest war is over. They fought for their country's and their allie's freedom.
I'm not even blaming the capitalistic society for the Vietnam's bloodshed , the thousands of new volunteers bought the state's propaganda that this war would determine humankind's future. But hundreds of young people from the slums were lured into the Army by hearing of durable job opportunities and free studies. The war in Iraq was claimed to be a fast , "clean" war using modern technology to have little to no casualties , yet theses people were used as cannon fodder.
No wonder soldiers like Brandon Hu*** didn't like being fooled and treated like expendable prostitutes.
Note that I consider prostitutes as victims , it's not a shame to be a prostitute per se , but our capitalistic society makes it shameful while encouraging it.
Advanced countries like Sweden chose to put an end to hypocrisy and punish the prostitute's clients , but they're rare.
Marine , though you hardly deserve my not so precious spare time , know that no matter how bad people can flame me for my opinions , I'd never abandon my set of morals for yours. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marine uses low blows when his frivolous attempts at swaying your opinion are smitten.
Stak, you are obviously referring to the peacetime method of recruiting for the military, which is "job training, college money!" How else is the military supposed to keep its ranks filled? As the terrorism threat increased, the military image became more macho and badass, assuming its more wartime recruiting strategies.
Stak, do you realize that the military will not even <b>look</b> at you as a potential candidate if you have any type of drug offense, or if you don't carry at least a high school diploma? Basic point, they're into hiring quality people for service.
Also realize we've lost less than a thousand men. In Vietnam we lost over 50,000. So, 50 times <i>less</i> soldiers have been lost in this so called "war," which itself was pretty clean. It's the nation building part that is killing off soldiers, because soldiers aren't great at nation building.
On another point Stak, you do realize that the N.E.A., which is the major organization strictly involved with teaching, constantly promotes an increasingly liberal viewpoint taught in public classrooms. So, the N.E.A. has been slowly but surely shifting the content of classes to the left.
"Look how bad America is"
"Americans don't have culture"
"America is ignorant"
I could go down the list of subtle messages that are shoved down American kid's throats every day of class, but it would take too long. Note *subtle*. Having just graduated from high school, it's very easy to see the curriculum imbalance in many schools. The majority of teachers lean left, even if they won't come right out and shove it down their student's throats.
....
Public Education, while an important factor of today's society, and certainly something that should not be abandoned, needs to be more balanced.
Balance.
It's something that people in this thread need to consider before they continue flaming at each other.
Nothing should ever be taken at 100%, that even goes for great systems like Capitalism. There needs to be checks and balances so that the Industrial Revolution or something similar, doesn't repeat itself.
Hey it was low, so I feel that having a go at me over it is more than justified. But lets not have any rubbish about me making attempts to chance other peoples opinions - I learnt a long, long time ago that absolutely no one is going to change their ideas. Any attempts to do so are smitten, by the brick wall of obstinancy, that is as strong with me as it is with everyone else.
Instead, I've taken another tack. I will continue arguing in order to maintain my knowledge of the strongest arguements that my left wing friends have to offer, but rather than trying to convince them of the dangers of their beliefs, I will simply oppose them in any way I can.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure, only when cornered when most the conservatives only have rhetoric to begin with <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa, didnt see this. I certainly hope you're not refering to me there - I pack plenty of rhetoric its true, but I'm also the quickest to follow it up with an arguement/linkage if challenged. Isnt it hard to accuse people of having nothing but rhetoric when you are the master of the 1 liner reply?
And for those of you who are saying rude/unjust things about American soldiers, you're no better than the hippies/liberals who spit on the 'nam vets when they got home. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unjust things? How do you know that..?
I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals.
I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time.
I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it would have been ironic if I mentioned that <u>all</u> wannabe communists were full of angst.
I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it would have been ironic if I mentioned that <u>all</u> wannabe communists were full of angst. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its good enough to say it, especially making allegations against someone you have no idea about and are defending a destructive ideal to the death over the internet. Hehe
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78799' target='_blank'>Take some notes</a>
I beg your pardon?
In the future, if you'd prefer that your opinion be taken seriously, I recommend that you limit super-generalizations such as this and focus your angst on individuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironic you say that then assume I have "angst". I used to abuse scapegoats myself once upon a time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it would have been ironic if I mentioned that <u>all</u> wannabe communists were full of angst. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its good enough to say it, especially making allegations against someone you have no idea about and are defending a destructive ideal to the death over the internet. Hehe
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=78799' target='_blank'>Take some notes</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You dont like being called angsty - yet you call for the slaughter of the entire upper class of America? If thats your happy day I'd hate to see you after an hour of linkin park.
Isnt that post a textbook example of rhetoric anyway - specifically "defending a destructive ideal to the death over the internet."
This is not a debate about who has the most propaganda, or whose mind is made of more mush.
This is a discussion about our society and it's socialist trends - are they good or bad. Are they just or unjust. Lets bring this away from insults and hurt feelings back to issues that can be debated.
I for one am against socialism - not because I think that it is bad, more because I think it is impossible. In order for true socialism to occur, you have to take "greed" out of everyone.
It is human nature to want to have things. Capitalism rewards those who work hard (or smart) with more "things". Socialism rewards those who don't work.
Now, I'm not saying that all socialists are lazy. I am saying that the socialist system promotes a poor work ethic, while at the same time punishing those who work hard (through heavier taxes). As a result, government is bigger and more cumbersome, and it becomes a "parrent" government, providing almost everything for it's population.
Capitalism on the other hand leaves less room for people to abuse the system. Hard work is rewarded with more money. That allows the person to buy their own health care / education, etc. as opposed to relying on the government for those services. The advantage to this is simple - anything the government does costs more than the same service from the private sector. There is less waste and a greater emphasis on competition / lower prices / greater efficiency.
So there you have it - capitalism agrees more with how people are - greedy. Until everyone gives that up, there is little point in being a socialist.
If socialsm was 0 and and captialism was 100. I would prefer to live in a society that has a value of 30 to 35.
Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life.
If socialsm was 0 and and captialism was 100. I would prefer to live in a society that has a value of 30 to 35.
Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
and why is that?
the neo-conservative movement.
Becouse it would work better then pure anything.
I am a socialist but also a realist.
If socialsm was 0 and and captialism was 100. I would prefer to live in a society that has a value of 30 to 35.
Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If someone never works (and I'm not talking about the impaired), why should I support them? To what extent should I support them? Do they get cable television? Do they get a TV at all? Why should they get a "GOOD" education when they aren't going to use it?
NO - if a person is butt lazy, they should get 0, zip, nadda.
In terms of public education, I think there should be an opt out option - or at least a redirection of my money to a school of my choice.
Here is another analogy.
Public school is like Cable TV, except you have to pay for it every month.
It is a service.
It costs money.
But I never watch the programming.
I moraly disagree with the programming.
Yet I still have to pay for the programming.
And there is no way to get out of it.
And if a person is butt lazy, I have never heard of anyone that is so lazy that they would never work if they could (with the exception of some rich people that gets more then nearly anybody else without working).
In sweden we have this system that means you need to work at least 6 straight months before you get any money from anything, it works.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany Raises 2004 Deficit Forecast to 3.7% of GDP (Update3)
Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Germany raised its forecast for this year's budget deficit, saying declining tax income and increased spending on the unemployed will push the shortfall further beyond European Union limits for a third straight year.
The deficit will reach 3.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, compared with a previous forecast of 3.25 percent published half a year ago and the EU limit of 3 percent. The budget shortfall totaled 3.9 percent of GDP in 2003.
``Three years of economic stagnation across Europe continue to have an effect on our budget,'' Finance Minister Hans Eichel, 62, said in a statement e-mailed to news organizations. ``The government budget is affected particularly strongly by tax shortfalls and additional costs for the labor market.''
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government is heading for a record postwar deficit even as the economy shows signs of recovery, the Bundesbank said two weeks ago. Eichel's announcement comes two days before the European Commission is scheduled to propose easing the budget rules to spur economic growth.
Schroeder is failing to keep spending down as labor-market changes and welfare cuts are not yet yielding savings. This year's budget will also have to cope with a shortfall of about 3.3 billion euros ($4 billion) caused by a drop in Bundesbank profit last year, Eichel said.
The Bundesbank said the 2004 deficit may exceed last year's 39 billion euros ($47.3 billion) and the 1996 record of 40.1 billion euros. Government tax revenue fell 15.6 percent in July.
Eichel said the government is still aiming to keep the deficit under the EU limit of 3 percent of GDP next year ``on the basis of a sustained economic recovery over the course of 2005.''
`Acceptable'
Germany's persistent budget shortfalls will swell the country's debt to 66 percent of GDP in 2004, further above the EU's limit of 60 percent, Eichel said. He said the failure to keep to the EU budget rules is ``acceptable'' for Germany's economy, which has yet to show a rebound in domestic growth.
Government economic adviser Peter Bofinger said Eichel may not meet his target of cutting the deficit to within the EU limit next year.
``The government's deficit forecasts are extremely dubious,'' said Bofinger, 49, in a telephone interview. Domestic demand, damped by Schroeder's jobless benefit cuts, remains ``frighteningly undynamic,'' while exports had their first drop in four months in June, Bofinger said. ``This implies a heavy burden for next year's outlook.''
Debt and Demography
Revised EU budget rules to be proposed Friday will give more leeway to ``countries with low debt levels and fewer demographic problems,'' Klaus Regling, head of the commission's economics department, told a European Parliament committee in Brussels today.
Germany and France, which account for half of the $8.5 trillion economy of the 12 nations using the euro, forced the EU to overhaul the fiscal ``stability pact'' when they snubbed commission demands to cut their deficits last year.
European growth slumped to a 10-year low of 0.4 percent in 2003, and the EU will remain the world's economic laggard in 2004, with growth of 1.7 percent trailing rates of 4.2 percent in the U.S. and 3.4 percent in Japan, the commission predicts.
Germany designed the pact to boost confidence in the euro by forcing governments to keep their deficits down. Italy, the Netherlands, Greece and Portugal will join Germany and France in breaking the deficit limit in 2004, the commission predicts.
On Friday, Regling said, the commission will propose giving countries like France, with debt of 63 percent of GDP, more budget leeway than Italy, with debt of 106 percent.
`More Flexible'
``There will be no general weakening of the stability and growth pact,'' said Regling, a German Finance Ministry official in the previous center-right government. ``Certain reforms will make the pact more flexible, but also tougher.''
The rules would be stiffened by requiring governments to do more to curb spending during phases of economic growth, an EU official told journalists. The objective of balanced budgets in the ``medium term'' for all countries will be replaced by country- by-country guidelines, the official said.
``The pact should be applied more symmetrically over the cycle,'' Dutch Finance Minister Gerrit Zalm, current chairman of the panel of EU finance ministers, told the committee. The rules ``will be tougher on the upswing.''
In previewing the proposals, Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said on June 24 that governments should also be rewarded for ``structural reforms'' such as selling state assets, fixing pension systems and investing in innovation.
EU finance ministers hold sway over the stability pact and will discuss the proposals at a meeting Sept. 10-11 in The Hague.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think that this is coincidental. Unemployed people in Europe are more likely to stay unemployed for longer periods of time than those in the United States. Unemployed people don't produce, be it a service or an actual material product, and consequently become a drain on the economy. So much so that it's causing Germany to exceed the limits that the EU set.
I think it's a good article and relevant to this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Health care should be free. Everyone should be allowed GOOD education, never be denied it. Making education purely private is a huge step backwards IMO.
If you never work you should get enough money foor food and shelter, but in no way enough to live a good life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But <i>why</i> should health care be free? How exactly can you make it "free?" Medicines and equipment have to come from somewhere and doctors and nurses need to be sufficiently compensated to make the profession worthwhile. There's actually a nursing shortage because the compensation that nurses get isn't adequate for the work that they do. The funding for such a thing would have to come from taxes.
Education is a little different. "Good" is a pretty subjective thing, as my conversation with Pepe no doubt illustrated. The public school system is a good idea, in my opinion, even if it does need to be worked over so schools have better ways of dealing with troublesome students. I think that saying "everybody" deserves a good education is a slippery slope, because then you're stuck with people disrupting classes and so forth. I think that there needs to be more people pushing for private schools. If they were as numerous as public schools, the competition could drive down tuition prices to something similiar to what it costs to educate in a public school (~$10,000/yr.).
The problem with your last part is that people who don't produce still consume. As the article shows, people who remain unemployed for long periods of time drive up debt and decrease productivity. Europe has had higher unemployment than the U.S. for the past two decades and at least part of that is the cushy benefits that the unemployed get. Mooching off of the government, and consequently your fellow citizens, hurts the economy and causes stagnation. The best way to stop it is to simply disallow mooching.
And if a person is butt lazy, I have never heard of anyone that is so lazy that they would never work if they could (with the exception of some rich people that gets more then nearly anybody else without working).
In sweden we have this system that means you need to work at least 6 straight months before you get any money from anything, it works. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
here in the U.S., your high school diploma is worth jack squat in the working world. You have about as many options as an illegal immigrant who can't speak English, and a lot of times they get hired because they work for less, and because of so called 'equal-opportunity' laws.
everyone knows that secondary education is where it's at. Primary education is nice, yes, but hardly worth the effort. The amount of money spent by the feds on the educational system is paltry, most of it comes from state and city (property) taxes. I'd rather not pay them a good chunk of my salary for them to blow on God-knows-what and give us crappy, overregulated, underachieving schools.
If you've ever been in a poor school (and I have), you'll understand that the reason they underperform isn't because they don't have enough money - although some of them truly do lack it - it's because most of the students don't set a priority on the education. Why should I pay for them to clown around in class, to insult the teacher to the point where she quits her job after 10 years, to end up flunking out and to be held back to leech another year? And guess what, when they inevitably drop out, they leech some more off of welfare, while having kids they can't afford. <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*edit* grammar, and added emoticons <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Secondary education may matter in sweden, but it depends entirely on what kind of work you are aiming for. A doctor needs secondary education, but to even be allowed in to that education you pretty much need to score an average of 20 in primary education (that is top grades in every subject, and Ive heard that the top grade in sweden has harder requirements then an A+ in the USA, but dont quote me on that one).
No one should be denied as good healthcare as possible for any reason. No event like disease or an accident should destroy ones life, it is off cource not always be preventible but when it is it should be done. Id say the taxes we pay for that is worth it.
Oh and I will rephrase the school one: Everyone should have the right for a chance to good education. If they are too distruptive and sush they should be dealt with, but not denied education altogether.