Refusing service

[Kevrob]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collect
money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

No, absolutely *not*.
With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always
regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with
them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a
metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a
host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
James Madison, 1831
This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of
Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general
legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special
powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was
intended.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83

Those are the private views of some of the founding fathers. They are
of interest, and illuminating, and may even offer some guidance, but
they are not gospel. Nor are they law. It would be unwise in the
extreme to insist on the personal interpretation of some 18th century
politicians, however worthy, to arrange the affairs of a 21st century
nation.

They are the views of

a.) Madison, the main architect of the Constitution and of

b.) Hamilton, the main theorist of the Federalist faction. While
Madison was a protege of Jefferson, and wound up in the nascent
Democratic-Republicans, the Federalists rivals in the "First
Party System."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System

Hamilton was wont to support an expansive reading of the powers
of the Federal government, so if he and Madison, who wanted a
stronger central government than the US had under the Articles
of Confederation, but nothing as strong as Hamilton did, could
agree about the meaning, that view was non-controversial.

I would agree that using the "original meaning" interpretation:
what did those words mean at the time they were written, commonly,
or as is the case with legal terms, according to the accepted
meaning as used by courts and legislatures of the time. "Original
intent" is a step away from what was actually voted on.

Imposing contemporary meanings on decades or centuries old documents
is just silly, but people do it. (The "Living Constitution" crowd.)

Kevin R

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:44:34 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

I follow your argument.
Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need a
Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be expanded.
Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their proposal
fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which risks
the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

Considering the education level in this country I would say the the
DoE was a
detriment.

My Doctor says I have multiple personality disorder, but we don't
agree with that.

Don't get into a fight, you might shoot the others...

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:53:37 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:38:23 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 18:34:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

If there is no general right of association,

Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.

How so?

How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless you
think people should be forced to associate with others. But
that's an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.

That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.

The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.

How does the government justify forcing you to pass health
inspections to keep your business open?

Because good health practices apply equally to EVERYBODY.

Тэе фаулт цан бе цаусед бы а брокен струцтурал пластицосмиц асператинг
торпедоес, а малфунцтионинг пэасе варианце страточуарк руммагинг
цондуит, ор евен ан амбиент поларитранспортер сцрибблинг сцаннер. Дид
ыоу тилт тэе енцапсулатед стреам анд эалт тэе дефлецторорганиц беам?
Ыоу маы неед а неь процедурал фречуенцы. Цэецк тэе сериес оф тэе
турбоцламп пласма. Алсо сцреь тэе пэысиоварианце дефоцусинг
трансмиссион иф нецессары.

It's all Greek to me...

[Kevrob]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:53:37 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:38:23 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 18:34:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

If there is no general right of association,

Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.

How so?

How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless you
think people should be forced to associate with others. But
that's an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.

That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.

The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.

How does the government justify forcing you to pass health
inspections to keep your business open?

Because good health practices apply equally to EVERYBODY.

Тэе фаулт цан бе цаусед бы а брокен струцтурал пластицосмиц асператинг
торпедоес, а малфунцтионинг пэасе варианце страточуарк руммагинг
цондуит, ор евен ан амбиент поларитранспортер сцрибблинг сцаннер. Дид
ыоу тилт тэе енцапсулатед стреам анд эалт тэе дефлецторорганиц беам?
Ыоу маы неед а неь процедурал фречуенцы. Цэецк тэе сериес оф тэе
турбоцламп пласма. Алсо сцреь тэе пэысиоварианце дефоцусинг
трансмиссион иф нецессары.

It's all Greek to me...

I think you were Russian to judgement. :)

...OK, google translate thinks i

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:53:37 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:38:23 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 18:34:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

If there is no general right of association,

Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.

How so?

How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless you
think people should be forced to associate with others. But
that's an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.

That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.

The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.

How does the government justify forcing you to pass health
inspections to keep your business open?

Because good health practices apply equally to EVERYBODY.

Тэе фаулт цаМ бе цаусеЎ бы а брПкеМ
струцтурал пластОцПсЌОц асператОМг
тПрпеЎПес, а ЌалфуМцтОПМОМг пэасе
варОаМце стратПчуарк руЌЌагОМг
цПМЎуОт, Пр евеМ аМ аЌбОеМт
пПларОтраМспПртер сцрОбблОМг сцаММер.
ДОЎ ыПу тОлт тэе еМцапсулатеЎ стреаЌ
аМЎ эалт тэе ЎефлецтПрПргаМОц беаЌ?
ЫПу Ќаы МееЎ а Меь прПцеЎурал
фречуеМцы. Њэецк тэе серОес Пф тэе
турбПцлаЌп пласЌа. АлсП сцреь тэе
пэысОПварОаМце ЎефПцусОМг
траМсЌОссОПМ Оф Мецессары.

It's all Greek to me...

I just blocked him right off. he appears to be a high functioning prog.

[Rudy Canoza]

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.

The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

[Alex W.]

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.

The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.

Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.

In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.

If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.

Then you support government funding of education, but you do not want
any strings attached. So who keeps an eye on how this money is spent,
whether the kids are getting a decent education, whether parents and the
tax payers are getting bang for their buck? And please do not tell me
"the parents".

Secondly, this would also mean that taxes raised from the public at
large would be spent at least partly on religious schools. Try getting
that one past the Supreme Court.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.
The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.
Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.
In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.
If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

You're making an argument in favor of (partial) public *funding* of
education, not public provision.

[Alex W.]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Alex W.

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.
The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.
Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.
In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.
If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

You're making an argument in favor of (partial) public *funding* of
education, not public provision.

I realise that.

Hence my comments further down: do you really want tax dollars being
spent without strings, without supervision, without enforcement?
Because that is what it would boil down to.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Alex W.

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.
The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.
Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.
In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.
If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

You're making an argument in favor of (partial) public *funding* of
education, not public provision.

I realise that.
Hence my comments further down: do you really want tax dollars being
spent without strings, without supervision, without enforcement?

I addressed that. Apart from telling food stamp recipients that they
can't use them to buy alcohol and tobacco and non-food items, the food,
housing and medical care assistance are without strings. What's the
problem? Put some strings on it if you wish: the schools must be
accredited, etc.

"No strings" isn't *really* your concern, though. As a statist, you
absolutely want the state to control the curriculum and to own and
operate the schools...the better to breed new generations of statists.

[Kevrob]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.
The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.
Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.
In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.
If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.

Then you support government funding of education, but you do not want
any strings attached. So who keeps an eye on how this money is spent,
whether the kids are getting a decent education, whether parents and the
tax payers are getting bang for their buck? And please do not tell me
"the parents".
Secondly, this would also mean that taxes raised from the public at
large would be spent at least partly on religious schools. Try getting
that one past the Supreme Court.

The best system would be: parents pay what they can, from 0 to the full
boat. A foundation or series of foundations would raise donations to fund
privately arranged scholarships. Alternate forms of learning would be
allowed and encouraged: home schooling by individual families or groups
of families, distance learning course by course or entire schools that
exist only online. There are already versions of the latter, some of
which are officially public schools. They are a boon to kids who live in
the sticks, where their local schools may not have a wide selection of
courses, especially advanced ones.

Certification by testing and/or portfolio evaluation could stand in for
school "years." Once you've proved you know level 1, move on to level 2.
Nobody would care how old you are, or whether you are a "sophomore" or
a senior.

The social aspects of schools, including any extracurricular activities
and sports would have to be off-loaded to specialized clubs or community
centers. So you play football or basketball for a "Boys and Girls Club"
team or the local youth soccer program starts an AAU squad or several
for the high-school age jocks. Participation may go up, because those
sorts of organizations can scale. Have enough players for a "B" squad?
No need for them to sit on a bench waiting for someone to get hurt.
You schedule some games for them. (kind of like Junior Varsity, but as
many teams as you can fund.)

The modern American school in the Mann-Dewey tradition is perhaps not
the best fit for the 21st century, anyway.

Kevin R

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.
The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.
Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.
In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.
If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.

Then you support government funding of education, but you do not want
any strings attached.

I'm not sure if I do support it entirely, as I don't like the idea that
the state can tell people what goods and services to buy in the first
place. But to the extent I might support it, I want to make clear that
government funding does not have to take the form of government
provision, and government provision almost always results in a shitty
product.

Post by Alex W.
So who keeps an eye on how this money is spent,
whether the kids are getting a decent education, whether parents and the
tax payers are getting bang for their buck? And please do not tell me
"the parents".

Who keeps an eye on how public assistance for food, housing and medical
care are spent?

The market works. Reputation matters; consumers talk among themselves.
Bad operators are weeded out.

Post by Alex W.
Secondly, this would also mean that taxes raised from the public at
large would be spent at least partly on religious schools. Try getting
that one past the Supreme Court.

Shouldn't be too hard. Advocates would just have to go that the schools
aren't spending the money on religious indoctrination. People who don't
want it can opt out.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.
The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.
Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.
In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.
If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.

Then you support government funding of education,

No but if you give a PELL GRANT for 2,500 for college then you should be
equal and give a PELL GRANT for children from K-12 grades as well.

Either that or you need to be equal by stopping all PELL GRANTS. I would
suggest that you stop all the education GRANTS until there's an
Amendment to the constitution to allow Federal laws for education that
can also be required to give equal treatment under the law for "all"
STUDENTS.

[Kevrob]

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

I've often said that the First Amendment's great lack is separation
of school and state. At the time of the founding, some states had
tax supported schools, usually under the control of local school
boards and/or churches. The last state to disestablish a state
church was Massachusetts, and not until 1833! Consequent to state
disestablishment was the development of the tax-paid common, non-sectarian
school. I won't say secular school, as there was religious content
in the texts, in a generally Protestant practice of praying and/or
scripture reading until the Supreme Court pitched that out in the mid-20th
century.

The various state constitutions usually contain some guarantee of a
"free (in the meaning of, some other sucker pays for it) public (by that
they mean the government) education (some minimum time in school, with
no guarantee of actually learning anything.)" That was ever a huge
mistake.

Some states tried, under the influence of the KKK, to outlaw
competing schools. The Supreme Court shot that down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters

Kevin R

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
bullshit has since been drastically altered.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
bullshit has since been drastically altered.

I'm old enough to remember when the brainwashing was mostly
conservative, and when it shifted 180 degrees to being left-wing.

[Ted]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
bullshit has since been drastically altered.

I'm old enough to remember when the brainwashing was mostly conservative,
and when it shifted 180 degrees to being left-wing.

Yes, it was conservative back then, but when did it shift?

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
bullshit has since been drastically altered.

I'm old enough to remember when the brainwashing was mostly conservative,
and when it shifted 180 degrees to being left-wing.

Yes, it was conservative back then, but when did it shift?

Late 1960s. It was happening while I was in high school.

[Ted]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
bullshit has since been drastically altered.

I'm old enough to remember when the brainwashing was mostly conservative,
and when it shifted 180 degrees to being left-wing.

Yes, it was conservative back then, but when did it shift?

Late 1960s. It was happening while I was in high school.

I was too disinterested in school to notice.

[%]

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Ted

Post by Rudy Canoza

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36
PM UTC-5, Mitchell

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run
at the local level.

State government, federal
government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public
education.
What is your beef with public
education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is
that it is run so
poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There
is no valid reason
whatever for the state (govt) to own and
operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed
consumption. We give
poor people food stamps they can use in
privately owned and
operated groceries; we don't force them to
shop in government
commissaries. We give them housing
vouchers which they can use
to pay for privately owned lodging; we
don't force them into
government barracks. We give them Medicaid
which they can use
with private health care providers; we
don't force them to get
health care at government clinics.
Education should be no
different. Give them vouchers, which they
can use to buy
schools instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the
statist
indoctrination. The public schools are
constantly pounding into
students' heads the need for massive
government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too,
although the content
of their bullshit has since been drastically
altered.

I'm old enough to remember when the
brainwashing was mostly
conservative, and when it shifted 180 degrees
to being left-wing.

Yes, it was conservative back then, but when
did it shift?

Late 1960s. It was happening while I was in
high school.

I was too disinterested in school to notice.

i was educating myself at the library ,
it was a government program i even got paid

[Ted]

Post by %

Post by Ted

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 >>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Mitchell

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run >>>>>>>>> at the local level.

State government, federal >>>>>>>> government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public >>>>>>>> education.
What is your beef with public >>>>>>>> education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is >>>>>>> that it is run so
poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There >>>>>> is no valid reason
whatever for the state (govt) to own and >>>>>> operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed >>>>>> consumption. We give
poor people food stamps they can use in >>>>>> privately owned and
operated groceries; we don't force them to >>>>>> shop in government
commissaries. We give them housing >>>>>> vouchers which they can use
to pay for privately owned lodging; we >>>>>> don't force them into
government barracks. We give them Medicaid >>>>>> which they can use
with private health care providers; we >>>>>> don't force them to get
health care at government clinics. >>>>>> Education should be no
different. Give them vouchers, which they >>>>>> can use to buy
schools instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the >>>>>> statist
indoctrination. The public schools are >>>>>> constantly pounding into
students' heads the need for massive >>>>>> government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, >>>>> although the content
of their bullshit has since been drastically >>>>> altered.

I'm old enough to remember when the >>>> brainwashing was mostly
conservative, and when it shifted 180 degrees >>>> to being left-wing.

Yes, it was conservative back then, but when >>> did it shift?

Late 1960s. It was happening while I was in >> high school.

I was too disinterested in school to notice.

i was educating myself at the library ,
it was a government program i even got paid

Really? Damn. Why couldn't I finagle something like that? :)

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

A PELL GRANT is nothing but a voucher, so why is it NOT equal under the
law so that all kids get a PELL GRANT rather than a chair in a
government run classroom?

If they fail out of an Academia PELL GRANT then offer them a vocational
PELL GRANT which needs to be a shorter program so they can start earning
money sooner and skip the higher education of college.

Instead of college start an entrepreneur PELL GRANT that helps them
start a business when they're in their 30's, a one time shot to start a
business using some GRANT MONEY so that you get a tax return just as
Liberals say that you get from a college student getting a job and
paying taxes. You also need small businesses to hire more people which
might actually be people from the vocational PELL GRANTS that will later
start their own business using a PELL GRANT for entrepreneurs.


Or shut it all down since there is NO constitutional amendment that
delegates powers for Congress to make laws on education.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

A PELL GRANT is nothing but a voucher, so why is it NOT equal under the
law so that all kids get a PELL GRANT rather than a chair in a
government run classroom?
If they fail out of an Academia PELL GRANT then offer them a vocational
PELL GRANT which needs to be a shorter program so they can start earning
money sooner and skip the higher education of college.
Instead of college start an entrepreneur PELL GRANT that helps them
start a business when they're in their 30's, a one time shot to start a
business using some GRANT MONEY so that you get a tax return just as
Liberals say that you get from a college student getting a job and
paying taxes. You also need small businesses to hire more people which
might actually be people from the vocational PELL GRANTS that will later
start their own business using a PELL GRANT for entrepreneurs.
Or shut it all down since there is NO constitutional amendment that
delegates powers for Congress to make laws on education.

Food stamps are worthless without a store that can accept them. Many poor people
leave miles from a produce market. Housing vouchers are useless if housing
simply does not exists: this is why cities are taking an active role in creating
cheap housing. An education voucher is useless without a school. How do you
guarantee a private school is as close as a public school?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

A PELL GRANT is nothing but a voucher, so why is it NOT equal under the
law so that all kids get a PELL GRANT rather than a chair in a
government run classroom?
If they fail out of an Academia PELL GRANT then offer them a vocational
PELL GRANT which needs to be a shorter program so they can start earning
money sooner and skip the higher education of college.
Instead of college start an entrepreneur PELL GRANT that helps them
start a business when they're in their 30's, a one time shot to start a
business using some GRANT MONEY so that you get a tax return just as
Liberals say that you get from a college student getting a job and
paying taxes. You also need small businesses to hire more people which
might actually be people from the vocational PELL GRANTS that will later
start their own business using a PELL GRANT for entrepreneurs.
Or shut it all down since there is NO constitutional amendment that
delegates powers for Congress to make laws on education.

Food stamps are worthless without a store that can accept them. Many poor people
leave miles from a produce market. Housing vouchers are useless if housing
simply does not exists: this is why cities are taking an active role in creating
cheap housing. An education voucher is useless without a school. How do you
guarantee a private school is as close as a public school?

So what you're saying... is that the kids can be bused by the government
across town, to integrate a school but can't be bused across town to a
private school for a better education? Obviously the voucher should
also contain transportation per-deum.

*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

[Kevrob]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Siri Cruise
Food stamps are worthless without a store that can accept them. Many poor people
leave miles from a produce market. Housing vouchers are useless if housing
simply does not exists: this is why cities are taking an active role in creating
cheap housing. An education voucher is useless without a school. How do you
guarantee a private school is as close as a public school?

So what you're saying... is that the kids can be bused by the government
across town, to integrate a school but can't be bused across town to a
private school for a better education? Obviously the voucher should
also contain transportation per-deum.

Better make that a per-diem.

A per deum would be what the theists want. :)

Actually, when I was a kid going to parochial school, the state did
provide funding for students going to other than government schools
to ride the yellow school buses. Your school had to be within a 20-
mile car trip of your home, and if you lived too close you had to walk.
They could make a high schooler walk a mile to the nearest bus stop, IMS.

I only rode the bus a year in grammar school, then the school moved its
driveway, and we were 90 feet too close. Had to walk for the next 10
and a half years, or bike, or get a ride from Dad. We sold our house
and moved in my last year of high school, so I rode the bus nearly
40 miles round trip each day. Our little mini-bus delivered elementary
and high schoolers to various private schools. This was NY state.

Since the aid was to the student, not the school, it was deemed constitutional.

Kevin R

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Siri Cruise
Food stamps are worthless without a store that can accept them. Many poor people
leave miles from a produce market. Housing vouchers are useless if housing
simply does not exists: this is why cities are taking an active role in creating
cheap housing. An education voucher is useless without a school. How do you
guarantee a private school is as close as a public school?

So what you're saying... is that the kids can be bused by the government
across town, to integrate a school but can't be bused across town to a
private school for a better education? Obviously the voucher should
also contain transportation per-deum.

Better make that a per-diem.
A per deum would be what the theists want. :)
Actually, when I was a kid going to parochial school, the state did
provide funding for students going to other than government schools
to ride the yellow school buses. Your school had to be within a 20-
mile car trip of your home, and if you lived too close you had to walk.
They could make a high schooler walk a mile to the nearest bus stop, IMS.
I only rode the bus a year in grammar school, then the school moved its
driveway, and we were 90 feet too close. Had to walk for the next 10
and a half years, or bike, or get a ride from Dad. We sold our house
and moved in my last year of high school, so I rode the bus nearly
40 miles round trip each day. Our little mini-bus delivered elementary
and high schoolers to various private schools. This was NY state.
Since the aid was to the student, not the school, it was deemed constitutional.

Get rid of public schools but keep public school busses?

[Kevrob]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob
Since the aid was to the student, not the school, it was deemed constitutional.

Get rid of public schools but keep public school busses?

Hey, no kissing on the government's dime! :)

Government schools would have to be phased out. The transportation
subsidy for private school students made sense if the public school
students were getting it, too. There'd be no need for it if there
were a scholarship fund as I proposed earlier.

Kevin R

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob
Since the aid was to the student, not the school, it was deemed constitutional.

Get rid of public schools but keep public school busses?

Hey, no kissing on the government's dime! :)
Government schools would have to be phased out. The transportation
subsidy for private school students made sense if the public school
students were getting it, too. There'd be no need for it if there
were a scholarship fund as I proposed earlier.

And if there is no public transit and the nearest private school you can get
into is miles away, then ....... ?

[Don Kresch]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob
Since the aid was to the student, not the school, it was deemed constitutional.

Get rid of public schools but keep public school busses?

Hey, no kissing on the government's dime! :)
Government schools would have to be phased out. The transportation
subsidy for private school students made sense if the public school
students were getting it, too. There'd be no need for it if there
were a scholarship fund as I proposed earlier.

And if there is no public transit and the nearest private school you can get
into is miles away, then ....... ?

Cars don't exist? Seriously? Are you stupid?


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Don Kresch, thy heart is crammed with arrogancy, spleen and pride.
Thou art a puke-stockinged friend of an ill fashion, a cheap
nimble-footed madcap, a seven-chinned crafty knave, a blasphemous poor

Post by Don Kresch

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob
Since the aid was to the student, not the school, it was deemed constitutional.

Get rid of public schools but keep public school busses?

Hey, no kissing on the government's dime! :)
Government schools would have to be phased out. The transportation
subsidy for private school students made sense if the public school
students were getting it, too. There'd be no need for it if there
were a scholarship fund as I proposed earlier.

And if there is no public transit and the nearest private school you can get
into is miles away, then ....... ?

Cars don't exist? Seriously? Are you stupid?

The stupid one is you, you fuckwit. Where does Siri claim that cars
don't exist? Except in your imagination, that is.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Don Kresch

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob
Government schools would have to be phased out. The transportation
subsidy for private school students made sense if the public school
students were getting it, too. There'd be no need for it if there
were a scholarship fund as I proposed earlier.

And if there is no public transit and the nearest private school you can get
into is miles away, then ....... ?

Cars don't exist? Seriously? Are you stupid?

Poor people don't always have cars. They don't always have private schools in
walking distance. They don't always have public transit, and the public transit
they have is not always safe. Public schools will be within walking distance or
the school will provide safe and reliable transportation.

Much of this also applies to rural children such as along Summit Road.

http://www.loma.k12.ca.us

[Don Kresch]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Don Kresch

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Kevrob
Government schools would have to be phased out. The transportation
subsidy for private school students made sense if the public school
students were getting it, too. There'd be no need for it if there
were a scholarship fund as I proposed earlier.

And if there is no public transit and the nearest private school you can get
into is miles away, then ....... ?

Cars don't exist? Seriously? Are you stupid?

Poor people don't always have cars.

Most of the time they do. And they could have cheap cars
without the EPA and other idiot regulations.

But please continue with your fantasy world; it amuses me.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Cloud Hobbit]

If there is no public transit and the nearest private scool is miles away why are you living there?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Cloud Hobbit
If there is no public transit and the nearest private scool is miles away why
are you living there?

And you're still an idiot.

[Kevrob]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Cloud Hobbit
If there is no public transit and the nearest private scool is miles away why
are you living there?

And you're still an idiot.

Be that as it may - and I don't believe it is - you dodged
a salient point. Why live in the boonies without a car?

A few years ago, when I was living cheaply in a room rented
from someone whose house was a good six miles from a bus line
or the local train station, and I had to get to my new job,
I would, when I couldn't get a ride, bicycle that distance
and put the bike on the rack on the front of the bus. Then
I'd get off the bus and get back on the bike for the rest of
the trip. I could have transferred to a second bus, and only
have to bike the final mile. Round trip, 30 miles, of which I
might bike half. (I biked a lot, including to and from school,
in my youth.) There was a stretch of road on the return trip
with a 3-mile stretch of hill: from sea level to 600 feet above.
I always had to get off and push for the last half mile

I started out with a $25 Goodwill special, then upgraded to a
department store Bike Shaped Object, and finally a nice, steel-
framed Univega hybrid found on Craig's List. I could ride that
15-miles on a cool morning, and save the bus for the trip home.
The two-wheelers helped me save money to buy a sedan. After I
had to junk that, I got an old Jeep. I now live closer to work:
a 25 minute drive, but nearly 2 hours via 3 buses.

State provision of services, from postal delivery without distance
pricing to state schools to highway development are de facto
subsidies for living far from cities and towns. If one isn't
farming, ranching or otherwise engaged in the kind of economic
activities the countryside is known for, living far from town
is a luxury of sorts. Before nearly everybody bought a car,
we had "streetcar suburbs" - people bought bungalows along
streetcar and commuter rail lines so they could work in the city.
The mortgage interest deduction skews housing decisions towards
single-family homes out in the `burbs, as does the state-provided
education system. People buy homes based on the school district.
If the schools kids attend were divorced from the district they
live in, people would be less likely to kill themselves trying to
afford a place in a suburb "with good schools."

It isn't practical to live in rural or outer suburban areas if you
can't afford a car. When I had to walk or bike 3 miles to the
nearest grocery store, I learned that. As soon as I saved up
enough cash, I moved to where I could ride my bike or walk to
work if I had to (3 miles away.) Due to a fire at that location,
I'm now 9 miles from work.

Plenty of American people who live in rural or suburban areas
that aren't well served by transit have cars or trucks, if
only beaters and ugly "good runners." If they have no motor
vehicle, they are unlikely to live out there. Perhaps if their
house is in the local village or market town, but even then
the shopping may not be great, especially if the local grocery
store has been closed because it couldn't compete with the
WalMart on the state highway.

Distance education via the internet could solve the problem
for those who won't or can move closer to a school.

Kevin R

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Cloud Hobbit
If there is no public transit and the nearest private scool is miles away why
are you living there?

And you're still an idiot.

Be that as it may - and I don't believe it is - you dodged
a salient point. Why live in the boonies without a car?

Why live in a city because that's where your job cleaning offices is, but at
minimum wage you can't afford to live in the nice part of town?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

A PELL GRANT is nothing but a voucher, so why is it NOT equal under the
law so that all kids get a PELL GRANT rather than a chair in a
government run classroom?
If they fail out of an Academia PELL GRANT then offer them a vocational
PELL GRANT which needs to be a shorter program so they can start earning
money sooner and skip the higher education of college.
Instead of college start an entrepreneur PELL GRANT that helps them
start a business when they're in their 30's, a one time shot to start a
business using some GRANT MONEY so that you get a tax return just as
Liberals say that you get from a college student getting a job and
paying taxes. You also need small businesses to hire more people which
might actually be people from the vocational PELL GRANTS that will later
start their own business using a PELL GRANT for entrepreneurs.
Or shut it all down since there is NO constitutional amendment that
delegates powers for Congress to make laws on education.

Food stamps are worthless without a store that can accept them. Many poor people
leave miles from a produce market. Housing vouchers are useless if housing
simply does not exists: this is why cities are taking an active role in creating
cheap housing. An education voucher is useless without a school. How do you
guarantee a private school is as close as a public school?

So what you're saying... is that the kids can be bused by the government
across town, to integrate a school but can't be bused across town to a
private school for a better education? Obviously the voucher should
also contain transportation per-deum.

Do you guarantee transit that is safe and available and doesn't take away hours
each day?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Rudy Canoza

ss

All of his efforts involving
public education focused on schools run at the local level.

State government, federal government - they
both taxing the people to pay for public education.
What is your beef with public education?

I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.
The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.

A PELL GRANT is nothing but a voucher, so why is it NOT equal under the
law so that all kids get a PELL GRANT rather than a chair in a
government run classroom?
If they fail out of an Academia PELL GRANT then offer them a vocational
PELL GRANT which needs to be a shorter program so they can start earning
money sooner and skip the higher education of college.
Instead of college start an entrepreneur PELL GRANT that helps them
start a business when they're in their 30's, a one time shot to start a
business using some GRANT MONEY so that you get a tax return just as
Liberals say that you get from a college student getting a job and
paying taxes. You also need small businesses to hire more people which
might actually be people from the vocational PELL GRANTS that will later
start their own business using a PELL GRANT for entrepreneurs.
Or shut it all down since there is NO constitutional amendment that
delegates powers for Congress to make laws on education.

Food stamps are worthless without a store that can accept them. Many poor people
leave miles from a produce market. Housing vouchers are useless if housing
simply does not exists: this is why cities are taking an active role in creating
cheap housing. An education voucher is useless without a school. How do you
guarantee a private school is as close as a public school?

So what you're saying... is that the kids can be bused by the government
across town, to integrate a school but can't be bused across town to a
private school for a better education? Obviously the voucher should
also contain transportation per-deum.

Do you guarantee transit that is safe and available and doesn't take away hours
each day?

Is that what integration busing did?

I think Uber or an Uber bus or a city bus that runs to the school might
work or a new driverless bus that the voucher pays for that has a camera
and a security system or officer riding on it.

Could be the school will offer a bus for the few that can't or the
wealthy that choose the bus rather than parents driving them.

Obama's kids enjoy a private school and they commute to it rather than
walk to the school, is Obama special?

[Alex W.]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
(2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids per
employee.

These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12 million
are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately $1.4 trillion.

That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that the
DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or run
schools, and does not set or control educational standards (that's a job
for the states).

So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
(2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the power
to congress to make laws about education.

[Alex W.]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
(2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the power
to congress to make laws about education.

Given that Congress is so deeply entrenched in partisan trench warfare
they couldn't even agree on a law let alone a constitutional amendment
that water is wet, such legislation would pass probably a few years
after snowballs finally stopped melting in hell.

[RD Sandman]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is
right? What is really necessary? And who decides what risks
should be taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately
decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund
education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard
to be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the
power to congress to make laws about education.

Given that Congress is so deeply entrenched in partisan trench warfare
they couldn't even agree on a law let alone a constitutional amendment
that water is wet, such legislation would pass probably a few years
after snowballs finally stopped melting in hell.

That could be a blessing.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
(2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the power
to congress to make laws about education.

Given that Congress is so deeply entrenched in partisan trench warfare
they couldn't even agree on a law let alone a constitutional amendment
that water is wet, such legislation would pass probably a few years
after snowballs finally stopped melting in hell.

Then "so be it" we have no consensus on the basics and we will then have
no laws that force people either way..... The Congress will have to be
prosecuted for fraud and stopped because spending and making
appropriations laws on education is unconstitutional. If the
constitution is enforced then WE THE PEOPLE will be forced to compromise
or allow that right to freedom of education to exist. Either way WE THE
PEOPLE are the winners when the constitution is followed.

[RD Sandman]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is
right? What is really necessary? And who decides what risks
should be taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately
decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund
education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the
power to congress to make laws about education.

Really no need to do that. The federal government already has the power
to set standards in several areas. All you do is add a couple more. Or
do you prefer spending $80B per annum and needing over 4,000 employees?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is
right? What is really necessary? And who decides what risks
should be taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately
decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund
education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the
power to congress to make laws about education.

Really no need to do that. The federal government already has the power
to set standards in several areas. All you do is add a couple more. Or
do you prefer spending $80B per annum and needing over 4,000 employees?

If it's constitutional then do it the constitutional way, and it's going
to cost us either way. NOTHING is free.

[RD Sandman]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another
is "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do
not need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who
is right? What is really necessary? And who decides what
risks should be taken and which risks the citizens may
legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund
education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an
estimated $79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is
probably the smallest department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard
to be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates
the power to congress to make laws about education.

Really no need to do that. The federal government already has the
power to set standards in several areas. All you do is add a couple
more. Or do you prefer spending $80B per annum and needing over
4,000 employees?

If it's constitutional then do it the constitutional way, and it's
going to cost us either way. NOTHING is free.

Hmmmm, hire 4,000 people to do the job of a couple of hundred? Who do
you think is the liberal between you and me.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another
is "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do
not need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who
is right? What is really necessary? And who decides what
risks should be taken and which risks the citizens may
legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an
estimated $79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is
probably the smallest department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard
to be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates
the power to congress to make laws about education.

Really no need to do that. The federal government already has the
power to set standards in several areas. All you do is add a couple
more. Or do you prefer spending $80B per annum and needing over
4,000 employees?

If it's constitutional then do it the constitutional way, and it's
going to cost us either way. NOTHING is free.

Hmmmm, hire 4,000 people to do the job of a couple of hundred? Who do
you think is the liberal between you and me.

Following the constitution even when you don't like the outcome is
definitely NOT being Liberal. Like me defending your right to say
stupid stuff when I already know what you say will be stupid.

Liberals ignore the constitution and they interpret it and get the
courts to unconstitutionally change the constitution when it's NOT the
outcome they want.

Basically the Liberals just lie and cheat and then steal our freedom to
get what they want.

Doing what the constitution says to do is far from being Liberal.

I say the best possible thing is to follow the constitution and stop all
laws including appropriations laws and the money from the Federal
Government pertaining to education until there is an amendment to the
constitution that delegates that power to the United States.

It's NOT a difficult concept. Get 3/4 of the States to agree and then
it's constitutional.

[David Hartung]

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
(2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids per
employee.
These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12 million
are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately $1.4 trillion.
That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that the
DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or run
schools, and does not set or control educational standards (that's a job
for the states).
So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

The entire department should be eliminated.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
(2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the power
to congress to make laws about education.

But the instant you do that they will spend upwards of 100 Billion
dollars a year....

You do know that the student loan program may default and when it does
there is over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS that will default. And that's before
they have any constitutional power to make any laws on education.

Most people in the Federal Government should be doing time in a Federal
Prison for conspiracy to defraud the Federal Government and the
Constitution.

[RD Sandman]

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that
standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids
per employee.
These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12 million
are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately $1.4 trillion.
That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that the
DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or run
schools, and does not set or control educational standards (that's a
job for the states).
So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

Go back and read what I wrote. Apparently, you missed it. I said that
the department should set national standards for the schools to reach.
You put out one set of standards for elementary school achievement (K-6),
one set of standards for high school achievement (7-12), etc.. You do
not set individual standards.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that
standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids
per employee.
These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12 million
are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately $1.4 trillion.
That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that the
DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or run
schools, and does not set or control educational standards (that's a
job for the states).
So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

Go back and read what I wrote. Apparently, you missed it. I said that
the department should set national standards for the schools to reach.
You put out one set of standards for elementary school achievement (K-6),
one set of standards for high school achievement (7-12), etc.. You do
not set individual standards.

NOT much room for diversity in that, is there?

I thought Liberals were all about sensitivity and diversity so the only
way to have that is to have local schools and local standards, that will
allow for diversity and Liberals are supposed to be sensitive to the
needs of local diversity.

As a matter for fact it would also be Multicultural to allow local
standards since many regions of the country have different cultural
roots and forcing everyone to be the same isn't very multicultural of
you it's more of a monocultural idea that destroys multicultural unless
you consider Liberalism to be the only culture that is allowed to define
multicultural.

*Liberalism sets up it's own paradox* yet again, they want to be
multicultural by forcing all cultures to accept theirs as the only
definition of multicultural, thereby eliminating all other cultures
definition of multicultural. That's just not very multicultural of the
Liberals is it?


*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

[RD Sandman]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is
right? What is really necessary? And who decides what risks
should be taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately
decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund
education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids
per employee.
These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12
million are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately
$1.4 trillion.
That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that
the DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or
run schools, and does not set or control educational standards
(that's a job for the states).
So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

Go back and read what I wrote. Apparently, you missed it. I said
that the department should set national standards for the schools to
reach. You put out one set of standards for elementary school
achievement (K-6), one set of standards for high school achievement
(7-12), etc.. You do not set individual standards.

NOT much room for diversity in that, is there?

Of course there is. All I am doing is setting an educational standard
for the different grades.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
I thought Liberals were all about sensitivity and diversity so the
only way to have that is to have local schools and local standards,
that will allow for diversity and Liberals are supposed to be
sensitive to the needs of local diversity.

I am not a liberal in the sense of having it drive me. I am not a
conservative either.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
As a matter for fact it would also be Multicultural to allow local
standards since many regions of the country have different cultural
roots and forcing everyone to be the same isn't very multicultural of
you it's more of a monocultural idea that destroys multicultural
unless you consider Liberalism to be the only culture that is allowed
to define multicultural.

Who is doing that? The standards I am talking about are for English,
Math, graduation requirements, etc.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
*Liberalism sets up it's own paradox* yet again, they want to be
multicultural by forcing all cultures to accept theirs as the only
definition of multicultural, thereby eliminating all other cultures
definition of multicultural. That's just not very multicultural of the
Liberals is it?
*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

So? What's your point?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is
right? What is really necessary? And who decides what risks
should be taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately
decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund
education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids
per employee.
These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12
million are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately
$1.4 trillion.
That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that
the DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or
run schools, and does not set or control educational standards
(that's a job for the states).
So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

Go back and read what I wrote. Apparently, you missed it. I said
that the department should set national standards for the schools to
reach. You put out one set of standards for elementary school
achievement (K-6), one set of standards for high school achievement
(7-12), etc.. You do not set individual standards.

NOT much room for diversity in that, is there?

Of course there is. All I am doing is setting an educational standard
for the different grades.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
I thought Liberals were all about sensitivity and diversity so the
only way to have that is to have local schools and local standards,
that will allow for diversity and Liberals are supposed to be
sensitive to the needs of local diversity.

I am not a liberal in the sense of having it drive me. I am not a
conservative either.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
As a matter for fact it would also be Multicultural to allow local
standards since many regions of the country have different cultural
roots and forcing everyone to be the same isn't very multicultural of
you it's more of a monocultural idea that destroys multicultural
unless you consider Liberalism to be the only culture that is allowed
to define multicultural.

Who is doing that? The standards I am talking about are for English,
Math, graduation requirements, etc.

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
*Liberalism sets up it's own paradox* yet again, they want to be
multicultural by forcing all cultures to accept theirs as the only
definition of multicultural, thereby eliminating all other cultures
definition of multicultural. That's just not very multicultural of the
Liberals is it?
*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

So? What's your point?

All schools should stay under local control and standards.

The Federal government has no powers delegated over education and it's
really a good thing when you look at the damage someone like Hitler and
Mao did in the name of education. Like Religion it's a RIGHT that we
don't need the Federal government making any laws about. If I were
writing the constitution I'd have added education to the 1st amendment
with the same rights as religion.

You do what is in your interest and I'll do what is in mine. And
Government has no power to create a National religion or "education"
which may just be a euphemism (code word) for National religion.

[Just Wondering]

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that
standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids
per employee.
These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12 million
are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately $1.4 trillion.
That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that the
DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or run
schools, and does not set or control educational standards (that's a
job for the states).
So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

Go back and read what I wrote. Apparently, you missed it. I said that
the department should set national standards for the schools to reach.

I say the Department of Education should be abolished. Education is a
subject that the Constitution reserves for the states, and should be
handled at the state and local level. Apart from the constitutional
limitation which should be decisive, part of the genius of our system of
government is that when the states are free to conduct their own
affairs, the opportunity for innovation is increased fifty-fold over a
top-down federal system.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/abolishing-department-education-right-thing-do

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000063.asp

You put out one set of standards for elementary school achievement (K-6),

Post by RD Sandman
one set of standards for high school achievement (7-12), etc.. You do
not set individual standards.

[RD Sandman]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by RD Sandman

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
imprecise, open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
need a Department of Education and should abolish it
altogether, and the other
side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue
that their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is
right? What is really necessary? And who decides what risks
should be taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately
decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT
give the federal government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
education would certainly fall into the category of "general
welfare".

That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund
education.

Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic
education, but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over
that standard would be up to the state.
You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated
$79B (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the
smallest department in the federal government.

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids
per employee.
These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12
million are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately
$1.4 trillion.
That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that
the DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or
run schools, and does not set or control educational standards
(that's a job for the states).
So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

Go back and read what I wrote. Apparently, you missed it. I said
that the department should set national standards for the schools to
reach.

I say the Department of Education should be abolished. Education is a
subject that the Constitution reserves for the states, and should be
handled at the state and local level.

My statement does that. I have the feds set national standards...how the
states get there is up to them. I wish everyone, for example, to be able
to articulate in English (nd conversationally in the prevalent secondary
language of the area. In the case of the SW US, that would be Spanish.

Apart from the constitutional

Post by Just Wondering
limitation which should be decisive, part of the genius of our system
of government is that when the states are free to conduct their own
affairs, the opportunity for innovation is increased fifty-fold over a
top-down federal system.

Which I haven't suggested.

Post by Just Wondering
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/abolishing-department-education-rig
ht-thing-do
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000063.asp
You put out one set of standards for elementary school achievement (K-6),

Yes, you have to meet those to advance to high school. How the state
does that is up to the state.

Post by Just Wondering

Post by RD Sandman
one set of standards for high school achievement (7-12), etc.. You
do not set individual standards.

Correct.

[Ted]

{snip}

If there is no general right of association,

Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.

How so?

How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.

That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.

The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.

How does the government justify forcing you to pass health inspections
to keep your business open?

Initiation of force. Same as how governments do ANYTHING.
Governments are coercive expropriating territorial monopolies based
upon the initiation of force in order to maintain the monopoly.

But they're a necessary and unavoidable product of our evolution.

Don't listen to Crachat. He's a burrito roller in Chicago and believes
in a silly caricature of anarchism. He doesn't *live* as an anarchist,
or anything close to it - not even remotely close to it.

Of course not.

Now, as to what you wrote about the necessity of government...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed
The key point is that government does not exist as an independent organic
entity to which we are subordinate. *We* create the government; it doesn't create us.

Thanks for pointing that out, Rudy.

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are imprecise,
open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need

a

Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the

other

side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be

expanded.

Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their

proposal

fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which

risks

the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

Imposts

and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collect
money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

And the mess they have made of it makes it fall into the category of

kill

it off.
People were better educated before the DoE. Or hadn't you noticed?

I had noticed that without foreign-educated talent, Silicon Valley would
not exist; nor would you have a working healthcare system.
I had also noticed that of this year's US Nobel Prize winners, all of
them are foreign-born and foreign-educated.
Nor had it escaped my attention that US kids score 17th in global
rankings when it comes to education levels, and 24th in maths. Overall,
US education scores are no better than average, and are outscored by
many direct competitors in the global economy.
And in that state of affairs, you want to abolish national tests and
curricula? You want to open the door to Christian fundies, creationists
and other anti-intellectual types?

Thanks for making my point. I have to teach my daughter at home after
school becuase her middle school teaches at a 4th grade level from when i
was in school.

Federal involvement? More like a crime against humanity.

[Alex W.]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are imprecise,
open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need

a

Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the

other

side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be

expanded.

Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their

proposal

fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which

risks

the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

Imposts

and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collect
money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

And the mess they have made of it makes it fall into the category of

kill

it off.
People were better educated before the DoE. Or hadn't you noticed?

I had noticed that without foreign-educated talent, Silicon Valley would
not exist; nor would you have a working healthcare system.
I had also noticed that of this year's US Nobel Prize winners, all of
them are foreign-born and foreign-educated.
Nor had it escaped my attention that US kids score 17th in global
rankings when it comes to education levels, and 24th in maths. Overall,
US education scores are no better than average, and are outscored by
many direct competitors in the global economy.
And in that state of affairs, you want to abolish national tests and
curricula? You want to open the door to Christian fundies, creationists
and other anti-intellectual types?

Thanks for making my point. I have to teach my daughter at home after
school becuase her middle school teaches at a 4th grade level from when i
was in school.
Federal involvement? More like a crime against humanity.

So your response is to abolish all federal input into the system? How
would that fix anything? The federal government does not set your
daughter's curriculum, does not set her tests, does not impose grading
guidelines.

In Britain, we established league tables for schools with the aim that
parents could see how well their kids' school was performing. We also
outsourced our testing and grading to private firms. And the result was
absolutely NOT better schooling. What we got instead was grade
inflation. Schools started to skew their curriculums and teaching
practices towards league table performance rather than quality. Tests
became easier and marking became more generous. That the underlying
knowledge and skills taught to our children became ever less demanding
was drowned out in the general nose of self-congratulation. And then
the kids began to hit the universities or the labour market and those
colleges and employers first had to put these youngsters through
remedial training to bring them up to a level where they could actually
teach them something *useful*. It is so bad that many firms in the UK
now expressly give preference to foreign workers in all areas of the
labour market, from waitressing to rocket science, because native job
applicants simply lack the skills .... thanks to privatisation.

In short, shouting "it's all the feds' fault" and taking them out of the
equation will not solve anything.

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

Post by Alex W.

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are imprecise,
open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need

a

Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the

other

side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be

expanded.

Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their

proposal

fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which

risks

the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

Imposts

and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collect
money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

And the mess they have made of it makes it fall into the category of

kill

it off.
People were better educated before the DoE. Or hadn't you noticed?

I had noticed that without foreign-educated talent, Silicon Valley would
not exist; nor would you have a working healthcare system.
I had also noticed that of this year's US Nobel Prize winners, all of
them are foreign-born and foreign-educated.
Nor had it escaped my attention that US kids score 17th in global
rankings when it comes to education levels, and 24th in maths.

Overall,

Post by Alex W.

US education scores are no better than average, and are outscored by
many direct competitors in the global economy.
And in that state of affairs, you want to abolish national tests and
curricula? You want to open the door to Christian fundies,

creationists

Post by Alex W.

and other anti-intellectual types?

Thanks for making my point. I have to teach my daughter at home after
school becuase her middle school teaches at a 4th grade level from when i
was in school.
Federal involvement? More like a crime against humanity.

So your response is to abolish all federal input into the system? How
would that fix anything? The federal government does not set your
daughter's curriculum, does not set her tests, does not impose grading
guidelines.

Are you a retard? Do you not know how it works here?

Post by Alex W.
In Britain, we established

Oh, that explains it. You are a failing country. PC is killing the formerly
great British Empire.

Piss off, mate.

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are

imprecise,

open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need

a

Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the

other

side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be

expanded.

Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their

proposal

fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which

risks

the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

Imposts

and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to

collect

money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the

federal

government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in

education

would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

And the mess they have made of it makes it fall into the category of

kill

it off.
People were better educated before the DoE. Or hadn't you noticed?

I had noticed that without foreign-educated talent, Silicon Valley would
not exist; nor would you have a working healthcare system.

Or without foreign educated talent, more Americans would have had to
step up and accept the jobs and those jobs that pay marginal would have
been forced to pay higher wages rather than importing the cheap labor.
Cheaper labor is NOT always in the NATIONAL interest or what Liberals
might call the "general welfare", so for the general welfare of the
*United* *State* it is probably better to NOT import workers but may be
useful to import some educated and successful people.
The Liberals problem seems to be that they can't prioritize what is
better for the *GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES* and they keep
moving to the idea of what's best for the illegal and other immigrants.

The Liberals "problem" is they hate white America and will do anything to
gut it. They are a clear and present danger.

[benj]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are

imprecise,

open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need

a

Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the

other

side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be

expanded.

Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their

proposal

fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which

risks

the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

Imposts

and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to

collect

money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the

federal

government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in

education

would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

And the mess they have made of it makes it fall into the category of

kill

it off.
People were better educated before the DoE. Or hadn't you noticed?

I had noticed that without foreign-educated talent, Silicon Valley would
not exist; nor would you have a working healthcare system.

Or without foreign educated talent, more Americans would have had to
step up and accept the jobs and those jobs that pay marginal would have
been forced to pay higher wages rather than importing the cheap labor.
Cheaper labor is NOT always in the NATIONAL interest or what Liberals
might call the "general welfare", so for the general welfare of the
*United* *State* it is probably better to NOT import workers but may be
useful to import some educated and successful people.
The Liberals problem seems to be that they can't prioritize what is
better for the *GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES* and they keep
moving to the idea of what's best for the illegal and other immigrants.

The Liberals "problem" is they hate white America and will do anything to
gut it. They are a clear and present danger.

Hey I watch Ken Burn's films on PBS so I know that all whites (who
aren't libs) are racist. You can't imagine the things whites have done
in the past! Of course oddly, I've also notices that all blacks (who
aren't conservatives) are racist too.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by benj
Hey I watch Ken Burn's films on PBS so I know that all whites (who
aren't libs) are racist. You can't imagine the things whites have done
in the past! Of course oddly, I've also notices that all blacks (who
aren't conservatives) are racist too.

And by coincidence it is legal to be racist. It is also legal to discriminate on
race in some circumstances. Currently in the US where it is illegal whites
violate the law more than blacks.

Some states allow discrimination on sex or sexual orientation. Some don't.
States don't allow prohibitted discrimination by public accomodations.

[Just Wondering]

wrote: >>

wrote: >>

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform

at a >> >> >> > presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition >> to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake
a wedding >> cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a
moral >> opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?

Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.

And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?

If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should

not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people

out >> of business >> for exactly that.

No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.

It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel

because >> it doesn't fit your bigotry.

You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?

Again, you are ignoring the obvious parallel.

Why are you defending people who break the law?

Why are you defending entertainers who are breaking the law?

No entertainers are breaking the law by declining invitations to perform
at Trump's inauguration.

Ah so you are selective in your outrage.

No. I'm not outraged over anything connected to this.

A Christian couple must bake
cakes for couples that violate their religiious beliefs

Baking cakes doesn't violate their religious beliefs. How could it?
It's what they *chose* to do for a living.

Baking a cake isn't the problem. The problem is embellishing that cake
with congratulatory symbolism of an act their religion tells them is
sinful, thereby, in their minds, being forced to participate as enablers
of sin.

[M.I.Wakefield]

Post by Just Wondering
Baking a cake isn't the problem. The problem is embellishing that cake
with congratulatory symbolism of an act their religion tells them is
sinful, thereby, in their minds, being forced to participate as enablers
of sin.

Are they refusing to sell cakes to adulterers? Fornicators? Divorcees?
Non-virgins? People who eat cheeseburgers? People who eat oysters,
lobster, or crayfish? People who don't keep the sabbath? Hindus?
Buddhists?

Or is the bible just a convenient crutch, because they don't like the gays?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by Just Wondering
Baking a cake isn't the problem. The problem is embellishing that
cake with congratulatory symbolism of an act their religion tells them
is sinful, thereby, in their minds, being forced to participate as
enablers of sin.

Are they refusing to sell cakes to adulterers? Fornicators? Divorcees?
Non-virgins? People who eat cheeseburgers? People who eat oysters,
lobster, or crayfish? People who don't keep the sabbath? Hindus?
Buddhists?
Or is the bible just a convenient crutch, because they don't like the gays?

The individual is permitted to define his own religious beliefs,
including only believing that gay marriages - and not marriages
involving all the other things you listed - are sinful.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by Just Wondering
Baking a cake isn't the problem. The problem is embellishing that
cake with congratulatory symbolism of an act their religion tells them
is sinful, thereby, in their minds, being forced to participate as
enablers of sin.

Are they refusing to sell cakes to adulterers? Fornicators? Divorcees?
Non-virgins? People who eat cheeseburgers? People who eat oysters,
lobster, or crayfish? People who don't keep the sabbath? Hindus?
Buddhists?

You're trying to determine their religion for them, that's typical of
Liberals that know more about what we need than we know. The question
you need to ask is.... Do any of those you listed have a "right" to NOT
be offended and a "RIGHT" to force someone to go out and catch lobster
for them or to force someone to kill a cow for them or to force someone
to go and rake them oysters from the bays and oceans?

So what "right" guaranteed those gays can force a baker to make a hand
made wedding cake?

Can the gays force a farmer to grow sugarcane for their icing or monks
to bottle a special gay wine for their gay wedding?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Can the gays force a farmer to grow sugarcane for their icing or monks
to bottle a special gay wine for their gay wedding?

Are farms and wineries public accomodations?

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by Just Wondering
Baking a cake isn't the problem. The problem is embellishing that
cake with congratulatory symbolism of an act their religion tells them
is sinful, thereby, in their minds, being forced to participate as
enablers of sin.

Are they refusing to sell cakes to adulterers? Fornicators? Divorcees?
Non-virgins? People who eat cheeseburgers? People who eat oysters,
lobster, or crayfish? People who don't keep the sabbath? Hindus?
Buddhists?
Or is the bible just a convenient crutch, because they don't like the gays?

At least in the case of that husband-wife couple who owned the bakery in
Oregon, it is not the case that they were using the Bible as a crutch to
avoid serving queers, because they had already sold baked goods to the
same queers. They objected to the queers using the cake to celebrate
the marriage that the bakers opposed for religious reasons. They were
perfectly happy to sell the queers a cake for a birthday party.

[Don Kresch]

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by Just Wondering
Baking a cake isn't the problem. The problem is embellishing that cake
with congratulatory symbolism of an act their religion tells them is
sinful, thereby, in their minds, being forced to participate as enablers
of sin.

Are they refusing to sell cakes to adulterers? Fornicators? Divorcees?
Non-virgins? People who eat cheeseburgers? People who eat oysters,
lobster, or crayfish? People who don't keep the sabbath? Hindus?
Buddhists?
Or is the bible just a convenient crutch, because they don't like the gays?

Even if it is a crutch, it's still their right to refuse
service.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Alex W.]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are imprecise,
open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need a
Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the

other

side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be expanded.
Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their proposal
fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which

risks

the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

Imposts

and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collect
money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

And the mess they have made of it makes it fall into the category of kill
it off.
People were better educated before the DoE. Or hadn't you noticed?

I had noticed that without foreign-educated talent, Silicon Valley would
not exist; nor would you have a working healthcare system.

Or without foreign educated talent, more Americans would have had to
step up and accept the jobs and those jobs that pay marginal would have
been forced to pay higher wages rather than importing the cheap labor.

Whatever makes you think that an Indian IT expert or a British doctor
are cheap labour? They get big bucks. The problem is that the US does
not produce enough highly trained labour.

Cheaper labor is NOT always in the NATIONAL interest or what Liberals
might call the "general welfare", so for the general welfare of the
*United* *State* it is probably better to NOT import workers but may be
useful to import some educated and successful people.

True: four out of ten Fortune 500 firms and one quarter of all high-tech
firms were founded by immigrants. And that should worry you. It
implies that there aren't enough Americans with the education to do the
same.

As for low-skilled labour, many of those jobs would not be filled by
Americans if you stopped the inflow of cheaper workers from South of the
border. They would disappear entirely, mechanised into oblivion. Make
it too hard and expensive for a farmer to employ harvesting gangs and he
will end up investing in machinery to do the same job. How will that
benefit anyone?

[NoBody]

wrote: >>

wrote: >>

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform

at a >> >> >> > presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition >> to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake
a wedding >> cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a
moral >> opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?

Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.

And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?

If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should

not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people

out >> of business >> for exactly that.

No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.

It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel

because >> it doesn't fit your bigotry.

You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?

Again, you are ignoring the obvious parallel.

Why are you defending people who break the law?

Why are you defending entertainers who are breaking the law?

No entertainers are breaking the law by declining invitations to perform
at Trump's inauguration.

Ah so you are selective in your outrage.

No. I'm not outraged over anything connected to this.

A Christian couple must bake
cakes for couples that violate their religiious beliefs

Baking cakes doesn't violate their religious beliefs. How could it?
It's what they *chose* to do for a living.

Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

because they "must serve everyone"

That *is* the law pertaining to those who operate a business open to the
general public.

A general public that pays for the service - just like an entertainer.

If you weren't so fucking stupid, you would know that I *oppose*
anti-discrimination laws.

You've shown no sign of it.

but entertainers can pick and choose who they
provide services before because...

Because they aren't businesses open to the general public. They stage
events from time to time, at their discretion. When they do, they are
not in a direct business relationship with those attending the event.
There is a promoter acting as intermediary. The ticket buyers deal with
the promoter, not with the entertainer.

Of course anyone from the general public may purchase tickets for an
entertainer. Your attempt to draw a distinction between the two just
falls on its face.

Why do you work so hard at being stupid?

Why are you so stupid that you can't see simple facts?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

[Don Kresch]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

No, no you don't. How odd that you cannot understand this
simple fact.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Just Wondering]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in
selling food for consumption on the premises, a bakery is not a public
accommodation. How odd you cannot understand this simple fact.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in
selling food for consumption on the premises, a bakery is not a public
accommodation. How odd you cannot understand this simple fact.

In most states, I think you wrong, and certainly in Colorado (the actual
case) you were wrong.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in

I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in

I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Under what delegated constitutional power is freedom lost?

The commerce clause can't be used for in state commerce and it can't
force the owners into commerce that they have elected NOT to engage in.
It requires a tax to do that. You can change the 1964 civil rights act
to use the tax laws to force store owners to pay a tax of service to
someone or pay the fine/penalty but then you run up against amendment 13
and *involuntary servitude*

["""Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery *nor involuntary servitude* , except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.""""]

I think that bakery owner should sue the Federal Government for
violating their 13th amendment right to freedom.

[NoBody]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in

I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in

I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Businesses aren't people.

[Don Kresch]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in

I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Businesses aren't people.

Business owners are.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is
a public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally
engaged in

I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Businesses aren't people.

Neither are progs.

[NoBody]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation. For example, unless it is principally engaged in

I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Businesses aren't people.

The owners ARE. You're making a distinction without a difference
since the OWNERS are forced to violate their beliefs.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise
I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is a
generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,

Same sex and a "religious marriage" are NOT the same thing.

They are Never equal and never were equal.

A marriage that meets the religious definition is how you exercise your
religion for you own marriage and for how you go to and celebrate
friends and other marriages.

The government can't declare all marriages the same everywhere. Because
the marriages aren't all the same. The government has to see them all
the same in the way the government treats them because that's "equal
protection of the law" but there is no constitutional power to violate
the religious freedom of the public.

[Don Kresch]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:33:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage,

Same sex and a "religious marriage" are NOT the same thing.

Marriage has fuck-all to do with church and state.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Don Kresch, ye same purpose clanger, ye sly devil, ye broker that
still breaks the pate of faith, ye daily break-vow. Ye drunk sworn

Post by Don Kresch
Marriage has fuck-all to do with church and state.

You're a fuckwit. Marriage might have fuck all to do with religion, but
the state?

<SNORT>

[Don Kresch]

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise
I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is a
generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.

No, no it does not.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[NoBody]

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise
I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is a
generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.

You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Siri Cruise
I know. The company I'm in is not a public accomodation. Every reference I've
seen claims the bakery is. If you want to argue that, I'm not interested. If it
is a public accomodation, it does lose some freedom.

Show us where in the Constitution it says that if religious people go
into business, the government may tell them how to observe their
faith.

Of course the Constitution doesn't do that, but your statement is a
strawman. The government isn't telling the baker how to observe his
faith. It is telling him he must serve a same-sex marriage, which is a
generally-applicable law which incidentally burdens his religious
exercise. The Constitution permits the government to do that.

You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...

I would not characterize a generally-applicable law which (emphasis
added) *incidentally* burdens religious exercise as government telling
someone how to observe their faith. For example, does a
generally-applicable law against murder tell a person who practices
human sacrifices how to observe their faith?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody
You just said the government doesn't tell the baker how to observe his
faith and then give an example about how a baker MUST violate the
belief system of his faith. Get your stories straight...

A baker and a bakery are different entities. A person and a business are
different entities and subject to different rules.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation.

So you're discriminating against an artist that does his job in a public
gallery but not an artist that has a private studio, you want to allow
"all" his rights?

That seems to be a 14th amendment violation of equal under the law....
the commerce clause has no room for separating commerce into NON
existent sub persons so that you can then discriminate against the ones
you seek to deprive of their constitutional rights.

[Just Wondering]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation.

So you're discriminating against an artist that does his job in a public
gallery but not an artist that has a private studio, you want to allow
"all" his rights?
That seems to be a 14th amendment violation of equal under the law....
the commerce clause has no room for separating commerce into NON
existent sub persons so that you can then discriminate against the ones
you seek to deprive of their constitutional rights.

Please show where I have ever discriminated against an artist.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Not every business that provides goods or services to the public is a
public accommodation.

So you're discriminating against an artist that does his job in a public
gallery but not an artist that has a private studio, you want to allow
"all" his rights?
That seems to be a 14th amendment violation of equal under the law....
the commerce clause has no room for separating commerce into NON
existent sub persons so that you can then discriminate against the ones
you seek to deprive of their constitutional rights.

Please show where I have ever discriminated against an artist.

You are completely wasting your time arguing with Beamer. He is a
certified lunatic with brain damage.

[jane.playne]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't
"choose" to give up some of his freedom.

Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.

1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.

2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.

3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.


What is the difference between the three?

Post by Siri Cruise
How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't

Lots of activities have imposed regulation. You don't want the regulation, don't
do the activity.

[Just Wondering]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't

Lots of activities have imposed regulation. You don't want the regulation, don't
do the activity.

Or challenge the regulation. Not all regulations are lawful. It may
take a court decision to resolve the issue.

[jane.playne]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't

Lots of activities have imposed regulation. You don't want the regulation, don't
do the activity.

.


Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.

1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.

2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.

3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.


What is the difference between the three?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't

Lots of activities have imposed regulation. You don't want the regulation, don't
do the activity.

True for privileges NOT true for rights.... and you have a right to
engage in commerce and the regulating is for interstate commerce. and
amendment 14 says those are equal protection regulations and need to be
applied equally on all persons engaging in commerce.... You can't target
someone because they are a seller rather than a buyer... commerce is
NOT a one sided activity it actually requires that both a seller and a
buyer be involves equally to make the deal.

Any regulation that applies to one person involved in an instance of
commerce must apply to all persons involved in that instance of commerce.

If you have 5 people buying an item from one person then they are all
subject to the regulation on the transaction of that commerce.

You can't discriminate against just one of the six. Liberals tell us
they believe in equality. If so then everyone is equal under every
instance of commerce. Any one of the 6 that suggests that they NOT
engage in that commerce because one of them is gay and it's against
their religious beliefs should be subject to that same law used on any
of the others.

Since that is unconstitutional then it's also unconstitutional to
discriminate against the sellers in that instance of commerce.

There is no power delegated to regulate a buyer or seller... ONLY
commerce and for it to be commerce the constitution requires both be
engaging in commerce in the same instance.

SO all in the transaction/commerce are held to that regulation or none
can be held to it.

[Don Kresch]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't

Lots of activities have imposed regulation. You don't want the regulation, don't
do the activity.

Ah. So Might Makes Right. Gotcha.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't
"choose" to give up some of his freedom.
Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.
1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.
2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.
3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.
What is the difference between the three?

The law proscribes refusing to seat someone because of their race, but
not because of what they are wearing.

[jane.playne]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't
"choose" to give up some of his freedom.
Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.
1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.
2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.
3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.
What is the difference between the three?

The law proscribes refusing to seat someone because of their race, but
not because of what they are wearing.

.

Thanks for responding. I seriously doubt that Siri will step up to the
plate.

I apologize for making my question vague. I know what the law states,
but I was not interested in the differences of the application of the
law in the 3 scenarios. I was interested strictly in the differences of
the three scenarios.

Presume that the law does not exist and explain the differences between
the three scenarios.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by jane.playne

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't
"choose" to give up some of his freedom.
Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.
1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.
2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.
3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.
What is the difference between the three?

The law proscribes refusing to seat someone because of their race, but
not because of what they are wearing.

.
Thanks for responding. I seriously doubt that Siri will step up to the
plate.
I apologize for making my question vague. I know what the law states,
but I was not interested in the differences of the application of the
law in the 3 scenarios. I was interested strictly in the differences of
the three scenarios.
Presume that the law does not exist and explain the differences between
the three scenarios.

If you are asking why the law is the way it is, I would guess that the
majority (as indicated by their elected representatives passing the law)
believe discriminating against people on the basis of who they are
(e.g., race) is worse than on the basis of what they do (e.g., choice of
clothes).

[jane.playne]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers.

Wrong, the regulation is an imposed regulation; the proprietor doesn't
"choose" to give up some of his freedom.
Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.
1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.
2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.
3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.
What is the difference between the three?

The law proscribes refusing to seat someone because of their race, but
not because of what they are wearing.

.
Thanks for responding. I seriously doubt that Siri will step up to the
plate.
I apologize for making my question vague. I know what the law states,
but I was not interested in the differences of the application of the
law in the 3 scenarios. I was interested strictly in the differences of
the three scenarios.
Presume that the law does not exist and explain the differences between
the three scenarios.

If you are asking why the law is the way it is, I would guess that the
majority (as indicated by their elected representatives passing the law)
believe discriminating against people on the basis of who they are
(e.g., race) is worse than on the basis of what they do (e.g., choice of
clothes).

.

On 12/28, I responded to you with my own opinion of why the Civil
Liberties Act was passed. I have posted it below in the "end notes".


The point I was trying to convey to Siri was that the action, the
refusal of service, was the same in all three scenarios. As for a
difference in the scenarios, there was only one difference. The first
two scenarios were identical; the maitre d' was expressing the dress
code. In the third scenario, the maitre d' was expressing his bigotry.

Bigotry is a thought process; the American Civil Liberty Act's purpose
was to regulate and punish thought.





end notes:


I am very cautious to put the civil rights act in the "incredibly bad
decision" category because a very horrible situation existed. This
horrible situation was so rampant that it didn't affect just a small
handful of bakeries, but was pervasive in nature. This pervasive nature
is what caused congress to act. HOWEVER, to fix one very horrible
situation, the congress created another very horrible situation by
trampling on the private property rights.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

{snip}

Post by jane.playne

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne
Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.
1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.
2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.
3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.
What is the difference between the three?

The law proscribes refusing to seat someone because of their race, but
not because of what they are wearing.

.
Thanks for responding. I seriously doubt that Siri will step up to the
plate.
I apologize for making my question vague. I know what the law states,
but I was not interested in the differences of the application of the
law in the 3 scenarios. I was interested strictly in the differences of
the three scenarios.
Presume that the law does not exist and explain the differences between
the three scenarios.

If you are asking why the law is the way it is, I would guess that the
majority (as indicated by their elected representatives passing the law)
believe discriminating against people on the basis of who they are
(e.g., race) is worse than on the basis of what they do (e.g., choice of
clothes).

.
On 12/28, I responded to you with my own opinion of why the Civil
Liberties Act was passed. I have posted it below in the "end notes".
The point I was trying to convey to Siri was that the action, the
refusal of service, was the same in all three scenarios. As for a
difference in the scenarios, there was only one difference. The first
two scenarios were identical; the maitre d' was expressing the dress
code. In the third scenario, the maitre d' was expressing his bigotry.
Bigotry is a thought process; the American Civil Liberty Act's purpose
was to regulate and punish thought.

I disagree. The purpose was to regulate an action: the discriminatory
exclusion of people because of who they are. The thoughts are used as
evidence to determine whether the illegal action has been taken (that is
what differentiates scenarios 2 and 3).

Post by jane.playne
I am very cautious to put the civil rights act in the "incredibly bad
decision" category because a very horrible situation existed. This
horrible situation was so rampant that it didn't affect just a small
handful of bakeries, but was pervasive in nature. This pervasive nature
is what caused congress to act. HOWEVER, to fix one very horrible
situation, the congress created another very horrible situation by
trampling on the private property rights.

As you are well aware, SCOTUS unanimously held there is no
Constitutionally recognized property right for a place of public
accommodation to choose its customers.

[Rudy Canoza]

{snip}

Post by jane.playne

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by jane.playne
Consider three scenarios; one of which actually happened to me.
1. (actual) We entered a restaurant and the maitre'd refused to seat us
because one of the gentlemen in our party was not wearing a jacket.
There is no fundamental right to be a customer.
2. (Hypothetical) Exact same scenario, but the gentleman without the
jacket is black. Same outcome; there is no fundamental right to be a
customer.
3. (Hypothetical) Same scenario as #2, but this time the maitre'd states
that he will not seat the group because one of the gentlemen is black.
What is the difference between the three?

The law proscribes refusing to seat someone because of their race, but
not because of what they are wearing.

.
Thanks for responding. I seriously doubt that Siri will step up to the
plate.
I apologize for making my question vague. I know what the law states,
but I was not interested in the differences of the application of the
law in the 3 scenarios. I was interested strictly in the differences of
the three scenarios.
Presume that the law does not exist and explain the differences between
the three scenarios.

If you are asking why the law is the way it is, I would guess that the
majority (as indicated by their elected representatives passing the law)
believe discriminating against people on the basis of who they are
(e.g., race) is worse than on the basis of what they do (e.g., choice of
clothes).

.
On 12/28, I responded to you with my own opinion of why the Civil
Liberties Act was passed. I have posted it below in the "end notes".
The point I was trying to convey to Siri was that the action, the
refusal of service, was the same in all three scenarios. As for a
difference in the scenarios, there was only one difference. The first
two scenarios were identical; the maitre d' was expressing the dress
code. In the third scenario, the maitre d' was expressing his bigotry.
Bigotry is a thought process; the American Civil Liberty Act's purpose
was to regulate and punish thought.

I disagree. The purpose was to regulate an action: the discriminatory
exclusion of people because of who they are.

A practice the state has no legitimate interest in trying to regulate.

[Mike Colangelo]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department when it inspects your business.

[jane.playne]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department when it inspects your business.

.

My rights end when they take away your rights, such as doing harm to you.

The fire regulations are there to protect the customer's right.

NOW, answer the question that I posed to you with the three different
scenarios and tell me what is different between them.

[Mike Colangelo]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department

The fire department has no remit to violate any rights.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department

The fire department has no remit to violate any rights.

A business doesn't have a right to refuse inspections that ensure the safety of
customers and salaried employees. Owners of a residence can refuse entry without
a court order.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department when it inspects your business.

You should be able to place a sign that says NO fire inspections enter
at your own risk..... just as Chipotle's can place a sign that says NO
GUNS.

Because when I see a sign that says NO GUNS I know that the place is NOT
very safe. All the good law abiding people have been stripped of their
rights to carry a gun and the owner wants only the criminals/Terrorists
to be armed.

It means enter at your own risk.... no one is protecting you. Because
they don't have any armed security either. In fact they should be
required to post a sign saying they have *no armed security* if they
post a NO GUNS SIGN.

[First-Post]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:49:32 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department when it inspects your business.

You should be able to place a sign that says NO fire inspections enter
at your own risk..... just as Chipotle's can place a sign that says NO
GUNS.
Because when I see a sign that says NO GUNS I know that the place is NOT
very safe. All the good law abiding people have been stripped of their
rights to carry a gun and the owner wants only the criminals/Terrorists
to be armed.
It means enter at your own risk.... no one is protecting you. Because
they don't have any armed security either. In fact they should be
required to post a sign saying they have *no armed security* if they
post a NO GUNS SIGN.

That warehouse that burned out in California where over 30 people died
never had a fire inspection. According to the reports, whenever the
inspectors showed up, no one answered the door.

So evidently, if you're a liberal running an unapproved building in
California, you very well can tell that(One does not relinquish any
rights by opening a business.) to the fire department, yes?

[Siri Cruise]

Post by First-Post
So evidently, if you're a liberal running an unapproved building in
California, you very well can tell that(One does not relinquish any

This situation is repeated throughout the country. Many cities want artists in
residence but don't know how to arrange safe but cheap residences.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
You should be able to place a sign that says NO fire inspections enter
at your own risk..... just as Chipotle's can place a sign that says NO
GUNS.

Then your business will be shut down.

The fire department does not have the power to inspect private residences such
as apartments without cause, but it does have the power to inspect businesses
such as apartment buildings.

[Kevrob]

Post by Beam Me Up Scotty

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department when it inspects your business.

You should be able to place a sign that says NO fire inspections enter
at your own risk..... just as Chipotle's can place a sign that says NO
GUNS.
Because when I see a sign that says NO GUNS I know that the place is NOT
very safe. All the good law abiding people have been stripped of their
rights to carry a gun and the owner wants only the criminals/Terrorists
to be armed.
It means enter at your own risk.... no one is protecting you. Because
they don't have any armed security either. In fact they should be
required to post a sign saying they have *no armed security* if they
post a NO GUNS SIGN.

The business' insurer could arrange the inspections.
No inspection, no insurance. No need to get the government
involved. You may lose business to the guy across the
street who puts an "Inspected by Apex Fire Safety Co, A+
rating!" decal on his door, though, if you choose to "go naked."

Kevin R

[Don Kresch]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department when it inspects your business.

How is that different from Jim Crow laws? And remember: they
were LAWS WHICH VIOLATED EVERYONE'S RIGHTS. So please: tell us all how
every law is perfectly good and just. Do it.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Don Kresch, thou art as loathsome as a begrimed lecher. Ye are a
shard-borne mortal wretch, an arrogant very land-fish, a vile poor

Post by Don Kresch

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Mike Colangelo

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to

One does not relinquish any rights by opening a business.

Tell that to the fire department when it inspects your business.

How is that different from Jim Crow laws? And remember: they
were LAWS WHICH VIOLATED EVERYONE'S RIGHTS. So please: tell us all how
every law is perfectly good and just. Do it.

Where is the claim that "every law is perfectly good and just"?

Are you a closet theist imagining things that aren't there?

[NoBody]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Baking cakes for a gay marriage does. How odd that you can't
understand this simple facdt.

Irrelevant. When you choose to start a business that is a public accomodation,
you choose to give up some of your freedom to choose customers. How odd you
cannot understand this simple fact.

Ah so the 1st Ammendment is now "irrelevant". Glad you can pick and
choose what you think is legal.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by NoBody

wrote: >>

wrote: >>

On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 07:31:24 -0600, David Hartung

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform

at a >> >> >> > presidential inauguration because you have a moral
opposition >> to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake
a wedding >> cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a
moral >> opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?

Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.

And assess the same fine against Garth Brooks
and Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashville
crowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?

If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should

not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their belief
system. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people

out >> of business >> for exactly that.

No performers are breaking any law by not performing
for Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking the
law.

It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel

because >> it doesn't fit your bigotry.

You defend law breakers but think entertainers
have duty to entertain Trump? Really?

Again, you are ignoring the obvious parallel.

Why are you defending people who break the law?

Why are you defending entertainers who are breaking the law?

No entertainers are breaking the law by declining invitations to perform
at Trump's inauguration.

Ah so you are selective in your outrage.

No. I'm not outraged over anything connected to this.

A Christian couple must bake
cakes for couples that violate their religiious beliefs

Baking cakes doesn't violate their religious beliefs. How could it?
It's what they *chose* to do for a living.

Baking cakes for a gay marriage does.

"Free exercise" doesn't stretch that far.

Post by NoBody

because they "must serve everyone"

That *is* the law pertaining to those who operate a business open to the
general public.

A general public that pays for the service - just like an entertainer.

Nope - not like an entertainer at all. The general public doesn't
interact commercially with the entertainer; they buy their tickets from
the promoter. The entertainer is the promoter's contract employee for
the event. We don't force people to become employees of someone for
whom they don't wish to work.

Post by NoBody

If you weren't so fucking stupid, you would know that I *oppose*
anti-discrimination laws.

You've shown no sign of it.

Bullshit. Ask Hartung.

Post by NoBody

but entertainers can pick and choose who they
provide services before because...

Because they aren't businesses open to the general public. They stage
events from time to time, at their discretion. When they do, they are
not in a direct business relationship with those attending the event.
There is a promoter acting as intermediary. The ticket buyers deal with
the promoter, not with the entertainer.

Of course anyone from the general public may purchase tickets for an
entertainer.

From a promoter, who is the entertainer's employer.

You're too stupid for this.

[benj]

Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are imprecise,
open
to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
"necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need a
Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the

other

side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be expanded.
Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their proposal
fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which

risks

the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?

How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
Where does it give Congress power over local education?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

Imposts

and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States"

That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collect
money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
government power to regulate local education.

As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".

And the mess they have made of it makes it fall into the category of kill
it off.
People were better educated before the DoE. Or hadn't you noticed?

If anyone doubts it just go get a copy of a McGuffy Reader. Literature
at a level even today's college libs can't handle let alone our high
school graduates, but this was a grade school book.