WCOM -- Withold Comments, Only Monitor

"Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have."

I don't understand how its the government's falut that "we no longer learn much about our rights and our system of government." And I don't understand what the author means by "the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ..." in my opinion an adult's personal education is their own responsibilty. How can the author blast the idea of big government, and then blame the government for not being big enough to provide one's education?
I fail to understand how the claim that average citizens don't understand European history is the government's falut. If a person wishes to study European history then they can go a library and do it themselves, and if they decide not to then thats their choice, and its that the difination of freedom? Choice. The problem is that people are choosing to be ignorant, not that the government isn't teaching them.

I think the author needs to follow up on their own advice and study some history, anyone who honestly thinks that America is comparable to Nazi Germany or Communist China is clearly misinformed.

Copypasta'd from Oh-Wiseone:
The problem is that people are choosing to be ignorant, not that the government isn't teaching them.

I think the author needs to follow up on their own advice and study some history, anyone who honestly thinks that America is comparable to Nazi Germany or Communist China is clearly misinformed.

Care to elaborate? She just spent 48mins giving examples of how it IS comparable, while you offer absolutely nothing to back up what you just said.
Looks like you're the one choosing to be ignorant.

Well I think it should be obvious why America is not a modern verison of Nazi Germany and Communist China. Personally I've been to Communist China, and I've seen how they operate. Its not the same. Firstly there's the clear differences found in the facts that the US is not a one party state, and that in about 50 days we are going to have an election. Neither are true in either Nazi Germany or China.
There are other facts that seperate places like Gitmo and Nazi secret prisons. Of these differences first is that there are known American citizens in secret prisons, secondly is that although military trails have been set up, the US military justice system is hardly the SS in Germany. For example the first man to be tried by American military trails was Bin Laden's personal driver, the prosecution was seeking a punishment of 30-40 years prison time, in the end the man got 6 years with credit for time served, resulting in about 6 additional months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/08/ST2008080800038.html

Of course there are strong legal arguements agianst what the US is doing in regards to the "war on terror." And there is a certain resembalence between the way that Hitler or Mao created conflicts or wars without clear ending agianst "communist revolutionaries" or whatever and the current "war on terror" agianst faceless and often unnammed enemies. HOWEVER, I believe that once the next president takes office, especially if it is Obama, then this trend will end. I doubt you'll ever hear about the War on Terror after the next president takes office, regardless of who's elected.

1. The idea that America is not a one-party system is arguable. We have two extremely close parties who get all of their money from the same people and differ on a surprisingly low number of issues. Any attempt to get something done outside of those two parties is a joke. You seem to be very caught up in our "freedom", but what are our "freedoms" worth if the people cannot exert any control over our government whatsoever. The power of the people to control our government is almost non-existent. The ability to speak against your government is worthless if it can't be backed up with the ability to make policies change.

2. The current situation in America is very comparable to Germany in the years leading up to WW2. We are slowly signing over our civil rights to a government that spends it's time demonizing opposition and strawman enemies instead of solving problems. We have a political climate where even questioning military spending will get you called unpatriotic and thrown under the bus by the media.

3. We all pay for public school system, last time I checked, therefore it IS the government's job to educate people. The public schooling system is woefully underfunded and has almost no standards in most states. In the state I am from (NY), most kids get half a year of economics and half a year of government. That is pitiful. Every high schooler should be getting at least two years of economics and two years of government (probably 3 or 4 realistically).

1) I agree with most of what you said. But I still believe people have the power to change their government in ways not involving either the republican or democratic party. The question is of course will they vote that way.
2) Of course if you look at it in the most general way then they are similar. However I see key differences in the motives, Hitler's motives are clear but I'm not convinced Bush's are similar. By that I mean I'm not convinced Bush is after unlimited power in government or that he's plotting to kill people based on something like race or religion, or even do anything to people based on race or religion. So I dont see the lessening of civil rights as a result of similar motives or in similar degrees of seriousness. It is still possible to question the government, everyone does to some degree, and if you read the New York Times or Wall Street Journal or really almost any large scale paper you'll find plenty of content that questions the government including military spending. Heck on top of those papers I read the military service papers, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy Times, and all of those question military spending. Of course they are questioning not if the government should spend the money but just what they are spending it on. If you count that as questioning then you can look at the recent issues of the Army and AF times and find articles questioning spending on the M16/M4 weapons family and the F-22 and F-35 JSF program respectivly.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/army_xm8_rifle_070531/
3) Again I completly agree with you. However if a person knows that the education they are getting from their tax dollars falls short by their own standards, but decides not to take whatever education they feel they are missing into their own hands, by deciding not to visit a library for example, I find that person more responsible for their lack of education than the government. I hope I'm not misquoting but I believe Mark Twain said that "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education" Of course the government should be held accountable for how it spends our tax dollars, but if the government isn't giving a person something they won't it is better to get it yourself than complain that its not being given to you and not seek it oneself. In my opinion.

1. The entire point behind the public schooling system is that if you don't provide children with the proper education, they will be too ignorant to seek it themselves. How can you honestly expect the public to be informed when you never even stimulate them to the possibility of doing exactly what you are talking about (going and learning for yourself). There is a level of information that if someone does not reach that level the chances that they will even have the CAPACITY to learn it on their own is severely diminished. Think about what you are saying. If the school system does not show kids the importance of civic responsibility and the structure of government... who the hell is going to? You can't expect them to suddenly figure out on their own how things work. They aren't even aware of it's importance in the first place. They don't even understand how it effects their lives. There is no REASON for them to go research it on their own. There is a certain base level of education that is required to even expect personal responsibility. Apply what you are saying to anything else and see how it falls apart.
"Well if the school system doesn't teach kids to read, I expect them to learn it on their own."
"Well if the school system doesn't teach kids addition and subtraction, I expect them to learn it on their own."
The response to those statements is "WHERE? HOW?"

2. You've listed a variety of ways that people can SPEAK against the government, but I already said that they can do that. That isn't the problem. The problem is that there aren't actions to take. Even modest protesting now is met with violence from police. Third party candidates are shut out completely from the system. A third party candidate has no hope of spreading his message because the money required to do so by himself is absurd and he would still be shut out of the debates and most major media coverage anyway. The system is set up in favor of the two big parties, with opposition being easily marginalized. The voting system itself is biased to hurt third parties, with splitting the vote being a great way to cause the people with the furthest opinion from your's to win.

1) Their parents... I can't believe you asked me "If the government run schools don't educate our kids, who the hell is going to??!?!" This questions begs me to ask if you think that the government is the sole source of education and holds it like some treasure locked away far from the public eye. Personally when I have children I'm going to get involved in their education, regardless if the government gives them a PH.D and an education from the finest learning centers in the world. Obviously I don't except a child to teach himself basic math, or read/writing skills.

2) If you honest to goodness think that the people have lost any sort of meaningful control over the government then we are clearly no longer a democracy and you have only one option left. And that of course is to take control of the situation into the hands of yourself and other like minded individuals and overthrow the government. I mean if you really honest to God think that the government has gone so far that no form of protesting or legal action will stop them, then that really is your only choice.

"The parents" is a nice little answer... but it doesn't solve any problems. The parents are not only too busy but generally not qualified to be teaching their children about these issues. You can be an expert on an issue and be garbage at teaching it, let alone if you just have average knowledge.

You do this all the time, whenever any issue effecting children comes up. For example, I say that a five year old child shouldn't die of a preventable illness and your response is "The parents should have health insurance."

What the hell does assigning blame accomplish? I don't care if it's the parent's fault. I don't care if it's some wierdo that stabbed the kid with a syringe full of a bacteria. Finger pointing doesn't make the kid better. Finger pointing does not address the fact that the sick child is a burden unto the country's economy, moreso than if we just took care of the little bastard in the first place.

A decent education is considered to be a HUMAN RIGHT and it is something we are ALREADY PAYING FOR. There is no excuse for the government to do a sub-par job. The entire point of the school system is that parents are not equipped to teach their children these things, even if they know about them. Every child deserves a decent education, no matter what their parents do. If parents don't feed their child, do we allow the child to starve because it's their responsibility. No, we take it upon ourselves as a society to remedy the problem. We don't let children starve to death because the parents are assholes and we shouldn't let children be ignorant because their parent's don't have teaching degrees.

Are you telling me that if you ever have kids that you won't get involved in their education because you aren't qualified to? I was under the assumption we were talking about basic education, to quote you "addition and subtraction" so even though I may not have any kind of education myself in the pratice of educating others, I still feel I'm qualified to pull out 5 apples and ask my kid if I take away 3 how many are left. You don't need a teaching degree to teach your child basic knowledge like basic math, writing/reading. But of course a point will be reached where a parent is no longer able to teach their child the knowledge they need to further their education.

I'm going to ignore the stuff about disease because we aren't talking about it.

For the most part ninespine we are in complete agreement, if the government taxes people for education programs we should expect to get our money's worth. And if the government fails to do that we should be rightfully angry about it. HOWEVER if all one does is complain that the government is not providing, and fails to even attempt to make up for this short-coming, through his OWN ACTION, then he is equally at falut. Of course in this example I'm refering to a person who is able(ie not a child) to educate themselves, by going to a library for example, AND knows that they need further education. So if were in need of car repairs and the first mechanic you went to failed to repair your car what would you do? Firstly and rightfully you would be angry at the repair-man took your money and failed to do his job. HOWEVER you would also take your car to another mechanic to get the job done, you wouldn't just stand out there in front of the first mechanic's shop and scream bloody-murder while not seeking another solution.

So in summery, yes be angry at the government, but also look for other solutions.

There are no other solutions. It's not my job to educate every child in America. We pay the government to. I am complaining about the lack of knowledge IN OUR POPULACE. There is NO OTHER SOLUTION. I'm not complaining that MY CHILD is ignorant, I'm complaining that EVERYONE'S children are. How the hell am I supposed to teach everyone's children about government?

Copypasta'd from Oh-Wiseone:Are you telling me that if you ever have kids that you won't get involved in their education because you aren't qualified to?

LMAO. Wiseone is so good at missing the point, it's like an art.

Parden me, I don't even consider it anyone's(or anything's) ultimate responsibility to educate everyone's children as a group.
I think we are argueing on two different things here. I'm not really concerned about what other people do with their children, or how their parents raise them, or how they are educated or whatever. Its the parent's right to raise their children however they want, the way I am uncaring that a certain family will raise their children as hippies is the same way I'm uncaring that another family will raise their children as something you may consider "Republican."
So if a family is unsatisfied with how the government is educating their child then they should educate their children themselves, either with or apart from the government. If the family is unable or unwilling then thats tough.
I really think your concern for the entire child population and their education is rediculous because it assumes one or both of these two things.
1) That you think you know what all children should be taught, and therefore are in a position to dictate what they will be taught, regardless of what parents or anyone else thinks because we both know I'm not the only person who would disagree with your choices if you decide how and what the government should educate children.
2) That the education offered by the government should be the satisfaction of all parents of children recieving it, which is completly impossible even community-wide let alone nation-wide.

I'm not saying you should raise everyone's kid in America the way you want to educate kids, just your own. Everyone consider that.

I guess orphans are screwed.
If their parent's really wanted them to have an education, they wouldn't have died.
Deal with it. Batman did.

Let me elaborate and try to clear up some of the confusion.
We both agree that the government at both the Federal and State(CA in my case and NY in yours) level is not providing enough education given the amount of money spent.
Here is where I think we differ and please correct me if I paraphrase your opinions wrong.
If we both had children in the public school system we would both agree that they are missing out on critical education. For example you don't think your child is getting enough education about government, among other things I'm sure, and in this example I think that my child is not getting enough foreign language education, which is something I'd like my child to have.
In your case not only do you think your child is not getting enough government education but you are also concerned that everyone else's child is not getting enough civics, and you want to increase the amount of this kind of education given not only to your child but also to everyone else's child despite the fact that you are not everyone's child's parent nor even family. And while you will, I'm certain, educate your child about government yourself to your standards, you will also attempt to have the school system change in order that not only your child but everyone's child receives civics education to YOUR standards despite the fact that they are not YOUR children.
In my case I believe that the schooling system is not teaching enough foreign language, and I will certainly do whatever I can to educate my child in a foreign language other than Spanish. For example I'm learning Chinese and I'm getting pretty good at it, and I plan to educate my child in Chinese Language. HOWEVER I will not insist that the schooling system change to meet my standards because the other children in the same schooling system my child is attending are not my children and therefore not my responsibility.
So what I'm saying is that instead of making everyone change to your standards, simply take what the government provides and build upon as you see fit for your child and your child only, letting all other parents do the same.

Proof of the failure of the public school system: Wiseone's reading comprehension.

This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.
This has nothing to do with what I want MY CHILDREN taught.

Have I said it enough times? Has it sunk in yet?

A well-informed populace is CRITICAL to the functioning of a democracy. if our children are not educated about how their government works, we have an ignorant population that CANNOT vote responsibly when they even do vote. I am sitting in on classes at a local community college right now. These are History and Political Science classes. Some of these kids, who graduated from the public school system, cannot find THE U.S.A. on a world map. A minority of them knew where RUSSIA was and even fewer could point out CHINA. ONE KID KNEW WHERE IRAQ IS. The majority of these kids started the semester having no idea what the President actually does, let alone something like the Supreme Court. Some of them attributed dictator-level powers to the President, and thought his word was law.

Before you try to criticize the school, this is a very good community college with active transfer programs into $20K per semester schools. This isn't some backwater college in the sticks. It is in the capital region of NY, which is a very nice area full of amazing schools, which this school has transfer programs into.

This doesn't work. A democracy CANNOT function with this ignorance. I give fuck-all about what my specific child or your specific child is learning. I'm worried about society as a whole. I'm worried about the fact that half this country doesn't vote and a fair share of that other half doesn't even know why the hell they are voting in the first place.

I don't view it as my responsibilty or even my right to change the school system, or anything else public, to my own standards.
What gives you the right to decide something like this? We both know that if I was to create an ideal school system to my satisfaction it would probably not be to the satisfaction of yourself and probably many many other people, and the same goes for yourself if you created an ideal school system. Everyone would have their own standards for the education of society as a whole, tell me why you think you have more of a claim and a right to change the schooling system than anyone else, when if everyone else thought the same way it would be the most conflicting mess on earth.
And you don't even have a child in the public school system, and I would find it extremely unlikely that you knew more than 10 children inside the public school system. Yet you still want to change the schooling system for the entire country, because you "care" about complete and total strangers.
How about you just let people, ignorant or not, live without trying or wishing to get into their lives?
Instead of everyone trying to change the school system to match their standrads, which everyone has an equal and equally meaningless claim to, how about everyone simply teach their own kids as they see fit? I think everyone will be more satisfied with their child's education if they add to what the government provides as they see fit.

So in conculsion, you have no right, no responsibilty, no claim, no duty to affect how other people's children are educated. I never understand your desire to "save the world" which seems to be part of many of your arguments, don't you realize that your defination of saving or improvement or whatever is not universal? Live the way you want to, and let the rest of the world do the same.

If you think it is such a horrible thing to expect the public school system to teach children how the U.S. government works, how international relations work, and how the economy works... I don't know what to say... mostly because at that point I doubt your ability to sit the correct way on a toilet seat, let alone critically analyze any situation whatsoever.

No I agree that those things should be taught in large amounts, I'm just mentioning that some people will disagree and a larger number will disagree as to the amount that should be taught, and an even larger amount will disagree on what the course work should be. For example a self-described "hippy" and an "elitist Republican" may both want their children to be taught civics, but I hardly expect them to agree on the course material.
And when you consider this fact, it makes no sense that you should say what should be taught in public schools when there's no reason that your opinions should be worth more than anyone else's, regardless of how correct or uncorrect they may be by anyone's standards.

Point me to the person who disagrees that children should have a good understanding of how government functions, the role of the people in it, the voting system, our relationships with other nations, and how the economy works.

And just how do they work? I agree with your point that nearly 100% of people will agree that children should be taught these things, but I doubt that everyone has the same opinion on how the government functions, the role of people in it etc... You and me in this topic have had our disagreements about how the government works, and what kind of role people have in its operation. And we both know we've had big disagreements over economics.

But I think you've gotten closer to the solution, which is general consensus, by pointing out that no one would disagree with civics education. But how wide should the consensus be? Nation-wide? Is your average San Fransisco resident going to have the same opinions on education as a backwater Georgian? State-wide? Better, but you'll find strong disagreements among people from Atlanta, Georgia and Hodunk, Georiga. Community-wide? I like this one better because the trend seems to be that the small the sample becomes, the more similar each peice of it is, the more similar the peices are more consensus will be found when considering any question, not just "what to teach our kids." And more consensus implies more satisfaction because why would a person consent to something they aren't satisfied with?
This is really why education should have remained a state and community responsibility, not a Federal one, which is what its turning into.
Of course if you take this as a solution you'll have to deal with kids who will be taught "intelligent design" and perhaps no evolution, for example. Is that acceptable? Can you accept that kids who you have no connection to besides nationality will not be recieving an education you are satisfied with, even though the parents and adults of that community find it acceptable? Can you realize that those people probably have the same opinion of you, and your "monkey-science," that you have of them?

The reason education is becoming more and more Federal is because an educated populace is becoming necessary to being a part of a global economy, and many states really blow at education.

Intelligent design is a very poor example on your part because teaching Intelligent Design is teaching RELIGION in a PUBLIC school. The problems with that issue have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

There is no "opinion" on how government works. How bills get passed, the congress, the parliamentary system, the powers of the executive branch, rights guaranteed in the Constitution, how voting works, etc. etc.. None of this has to do with opinion. These are facts. These are the way things work. This is "political science". Political opinion has nothing to do with it. The way that united States government legally operates isn't anyone's "opinion".

Its not about being good or bad at education, its about people's freedoms within a community. If a community of people all want their children to learn intelligent design in school, then intelligent design should be taught in that school to the satisfaction of those people and no one else. Likewise elsewhere if a community of people all want their children to learn evolution, then evolution should be taught in that school to the satisfaction of those people and no one else.
I completly agree that some people won't recieve an education that is strongest for competition in a global economy, but this country was founded on giving people freedom, freedom to raise your child as you see fit included, not about how to best compete on a global level.
You want to take away the freedom for parents and communities to educate their children as they see fit, because in your opinion you know the best way to educate them so they can compete in the world as adults. Well frankly you have no right to tell a parent how it is best to raise their child, regardless of what you think is best for it. Additionally we both know that we have different opinions on how to raise a child and what/how they should be educated, everyone does, what makes your opinions worth anymore than mine or anyone else's? I know for a fact if I were to suggest things that should be taught and how they should be taught to every child in America, you would surely scream bloody murder at what I'd suggest, there's no reason why your opinion is worth anything more than mine, but for some reason you think there is.
I'll admit civics isn't the best example on opinion in course subjects, although opinion on course material is unlimited in any subject, I only used it as an example because it was something you were most concerned about. Also I think its foolish to say there is no opinion in government or things like the Constitution. I know that our respective opinions on the 2nd amendment are not the same. We both have different opinions on what is and is not the government's duty and responsibility, the best example is that we disagree on government's responsibility when regarding healthcare. If I were to design a civics class it would certainly not list healthcare as part of the government, yours surely would. Difference of opinion.

One last thing, what the government can and cannot do legally is the most opinionated thing in the government, in fact the whole basis of it is opinions. The reason we have court cases and trails is because there are differing opinions on what the government can and cannot do legally. The whole question of the legality of Gitmo is all opinion based on personel interpretation of law. If there was no opinion about this stuff there would be no need for a Justice System.

It's painfully obvious that you know as much about teaching and education in general as I know about automatic weapons and farms.

it is unconstitutional for any public school to teach intelligent design. Period. Public money cannot be used to promote religion. Period.There are plenty of countries where you can go if you want religion in the public square... like Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Your entire argument here is absolutely fucking ludicrous. By your inane logic, we should be removing English and History from the course material too, because some people might disagree on what books are worth reading or what parts of history are most important. I don't know when you started advocating radical Political Correctness, but it's pretty funny. In fact, lets get rid of math too, because people may disagree on what parts of math are most useful, AND WE CANT HAVE THAT! You take your logic to any other subject and it's obvious how maddeningly retarded it is (as though that wasn't obvious in the first place).

A public with at least a basic understanding of how their government operates is NECESSARY TO THE FUNCTIONING OF A DEMOCRACY. We all have seen, repeatedly, how much you absolutely LOATHE the idea of Democracy, the Bill of Rights, etc. etc. but this is too far. Now you are promoting that everyone being ignorant and stupid is what makes America great.

I'm saying that what children are taught should be decided at the smallest level possible to ensure the most general consensus, that would be state and community.
What you are saying is that every child in America should be subject to what you think is best for them regardless of what the parents may believe.
I'm not saying we should do anything, that is my whole arguement, that we should do NOTHING. Let states and communities decide for themselves what kind of education their child should recieve. If that results in a poor education by your or mine standards, well its no business of ours to get involved if thats what the parents and leader's of the community's general consensus wants.
I'm talking about the freedom for every state and community to educate their children as they see fit, regardless of whatever opinion you would have of the education they recieved. Someone in New York has no right to tell someone in Utah, or Arizona, or Georgia, or anywhere how to educate their children.

Did I propose a specific initiative?
Did I put my support behind a specific law?
Did I state the Federal government should do something?
Did I say how this should be enacted?

No, I didn't.

All I said was that our society needs to work toward making sure this NECESSARY education is given to our children. I never said how it should be done. I also support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I think the Federal government needs to step in and make it legal everywhere. Stop assuming that I am talking about a nationwide, Federal initiative, because I never said that. i never said that I have a legal right to tell anyone in another State how they should do things, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it.

Regardless, the fact remains that at least state-wise standards need to be held. If we don't do that, we have absolutely no basis for kids changing schools or going to college to start with. We can't assume anyone has ANY level of knowledge. Without any reasonable standards, we have no way of knowing if two kids who both graduated from the same area but different schools have even remotely the same education. We either assume everyone is a complete fucking idiot, and impede the education of those fortunate enough to attend a decent school, OR we leave the kids who went to a shitty school behind.

Education is too important an issue to be left to small communities. There needs to be standards and there needs to be expectations. For example, if we left it to small communities, we would obviously have people like you violating children's constitutional rights (and mine by spending my tax dollars on religion) and forcing religion down their throats at the expense of a decent science education.

Congratulations, maybe you just convinced the kid who was going to develop the cure for AIDs that dinosaurs lives 4000 years ago and now he works at a truck stop the rest of his life because he can't get into a decent college.

Well firstly I would never support the teaching of intelligent design or any religious studies beyond classes designed to teach about the different religions of the world, but certainly nothing to "create faith." I was just mentioning that it would certainly happen if education was left exclusively to a community level or possibily state level.
And I completly recognize the problems that would come from such a un-unified system in regards to standards, two kids from different high schools could have radically different educations. But I'm worried about people like you trying to impose their opinion of what is a good education on everyone, if a small community or a state wishes to teach their children religious studies in the state's public schools, isn't it every American's right to raise their child as they want? Its their children after all, I'd find it hard to believe that you would have more right to determine their education than the parents.
And even though this will certainly lower the quality of the education by both your's and my standards, it may be in fact raising the quality by the parents and communities standard. I'm personally content to let people live the way they want to live, even if that means they raise their children and educate them in ways I would not approve of if they were mine. Its not my place, or anyone's place, to tell them what to do.
Lastly if education was handled completly by the states, you're New York tax dollars would never be spend on any education outside of New York.

If a community doesn't want to teach their children math, that community is abusing their children, and depriving them of their right to a good education. A community has no right to do that anymore than they have the right to use "faith" healing on their children or physically abuse their own children because it's how they want it done. The children have a right to a quality education that gives them the best footing for living in this world as possible, and that includes good foundations in English, foreign language, math, history, science, government, business, and economics. Anything less is a *crime* against those children.

What makes you think you know better than anyone else? What makes your opinion worth so much more than anyone else's? Do you realize that many of these people would consider NOT teaching to be a crime equal to or probably even greater than not teaching them all the subjects you mentioned? Why should we listen to you and not them?
You are quite literally saying we can't give the people the freedom to raise their children and handle their education because they won't do it right, pretty arrogent in my opinion.
Perhaps we should go into the Amish community and bust that stuff up. After all what kind of responsible parents would have their kids grow up plowing fields with horses and oxen in today's modern age?
How about we just let people live the way the want to? Live at let live. As long as its peaceful I don't mind.

When have Americans ever been peaceful?
Especially right-wing, gun-totting, bible-thumpers like yourself.

Copypasta'd from The Dunwich Horror:When have Americans ever been peaceful?
Especially right-wing, gun-totting, bible-thumpers like yourself.

Crude sterotypes

Adults have a right to do whatever they want to themselves (except for drugs according to you).

That's fine.

But adults do not have a right to do whatever they want to their children. Children are not property, they are human beings with RIGHTS. If we use your logic, then someone should be able to beat, rape, torture, and kill our children at all, because that's what we want to do. We should be able to take our children out of school and make them work in the fields all day as basically slaves, then we can leave them outside overnight and feed them in a dish on the ground. "THESE ARE OUR CHILDREN! HOW DARE YOU TELL US HOW TO RAISE THEM!"

Yes, that is exactly the same as education...

You are the one making that argument, not me. You can't apply it to one situation and not another. Education in a human right.

Regardless, if I chose to not send my kid to school because I didn't feel like it, my kid is doomed to a life of poverty at best. I do not have the right to do that. My child's right to an education far exceeds my right to be a douchebag to him.

I agree that there is a limit to what a parent can do in regards to their child, but I think you are taking it too far. Giving a child a religious education, or whatever kind of education a parent wants is not the same as all that other stuff you've mentioned.
And you've never answered my question about what makes gives you the right to say all children should be educated in a certain way. A person who would wants children in general to receive a religious education would consider your ideas not to give children religious education just as much of a crime as you would consider it to give them a religious education. So what gives you the right to say that children, nation-wide, should be in an education system based off your ideas on what needs and what doesnt need to be taught?

And please remember I'm not advocating teaching religion in schools, I'm just using it as an example.

Ill say it again: Religion in schools is a horrible example and makes you look like an idiot. It does a disservice to your argument. Stop using it. There are constitutional issues with teaching religion in public school. That is a COMPLETELY different topic. Whether I support religious education is also a completely different topic. I think it is morally reprehensible for someone to raise a child in a particular religion, but I don't advocate legal action on the subject. It's unrelated.

There is only one correct comparison: History.

History is taught a little different everywhere but it generally hits the same main points. There are differing opinions on many historical issues, but good teachers make sure the children are aware of as many opposing viewpoints as possible so that they can critically analyze them... because that's what a good education does. I could teach a History class in such a way that shows the United States should have or shouldn't have gotten involved in Vietnam. My bias on the subject won't influence how I teach that subject if I am a good teacher. A good teacher will teach that particular subject in such a way that the children know the facts and know the opinions involved.

One of the reasons for school is to teach children critical thinking skills, which are learned by analyzing complex information. Just because a subject can possibly have an opinion attached to it doesn't mean we toss it from the curriculum. It means we make sure it is taught correctly. For example, my first Political Science teacher would argue with anything you said, no matter what, in order to teach you how to analyze and adapt your opinion subjectively. I didn't know until long after that the guy was a complete Socialist. If I had to venture a guess, I would have thought he was crazy right wing, but that was only because the students generally held liberal views so he was more often arguing against them.

So do we remove History? Do we change history and teach children lies because the community wants to? No, we don't, and doing so would result in the loss of your teaching license, much as teaching intelligent design should.

Alright good point, I wouldn't want History to be muddled or completly twisted, there should be some universal standards but I still believe that communities and states should have more control over their respective school system then they do now.

I agree that states should be the highest power when it comes to education, but there is something to be said for the Federal government providing extra funding to the states that meet certain educational standards.

Copypasta'd from The Dunwich Horror:When have Americans ever been peaceful?
Especially right-wing, gun-totting, bible-thumpers like yourself.

Americans are peaceful. Our governmentz just aren't. We're always doing those anti-war rallys.

=)

Copypasta'd from Blaze:

Copypasta'd from The Dunwich Horror:When have Americans ever been peaceful?
Especially right-wing, gun-totting, bible-thumpers like yourself.

Americans are peaceful. Our governmentz just aren't. We're always doing those anti-war rallys.

=)

I strongly believe the only reason you are peacful to a certain degree is because the natives of your country invented pot and the freaking peace pipe man.

National sterotypes are just are meaningless as racial ones.

Except a couple of months ago when Wiseone was saying the reason that black people have less money is because they are less intelligence (paraphrased).

I'm insulted anyone would think I was a racist.

If you will recall, I repeatedly asked you to explain why poverty overwhelmingly effects minorities. There are two possible explanations.

1. Poverty begets poverty and the cycle of poverty is near-impossible to break with our current system. Moving out of poverty is almost impossible if your family was poor. Because minorities started off dicked over in this country, that legacy continues because of this cycle.

2. Minorities are inferior.

Now, you vehemently argued against #1, so I must assume you go with #2.

In analysis we like to call this a "tyrannical question" where the person asking the question is posing it in such a way that, while there may be two or more selections, there really is only one answer. Policy makers and politians do it all the time. The most classic form is the one you've just given me, where all but one selection are so clearly unacceptable the responder to the question really has one choice.
In this case you've provided me with the following choices:
1) Agree with me
2) Be a racist

That's a lot of words with no real defense of your position.

You don't even know my position. But you're still clinging to your first question and I'm assuming you're still working off the idea that if I don't agree you, then I'm a racist. I don't like being called a racist, and I don't like people trying to corner me with these types of questions and "choices." If you want another example of what I'm talking about look at Bush's State of the Union where he said, "you are either for us or agianst us." Two choices, one obviously so wrong that it leaves the person answering with only one real choice, assuming that the person answering plays by the rules of the question "pick one or the other."

I'm still waiting for you to explain your position further.

I'm unintested because the initial division is obvious, whites and those of Aryan origin are clearly superior in all ways, most importantly intellectually, to the lesser races, except perhaps the brute strength the negro is capable due to his ape and gorrilla heritage. The real debate is found in the question of how the lesser races measure agianst each other.

Your sarcasm masks the fact that you simply have no answer for me. You've gone three posts now without being able to provide anything to refute what I have said whatsoever. Good day, sir.