Ron Paul for president of USA 08? Your thoughts.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

By comparision, many European countries have much more centralized and socialized schooling than we do, even up to and through college, and a much better educated populace as a result. This does cost more, but the results are worth the investment.

I completely disagree with both your data and your conclusions. The comparison would more properly be made between the US system and the EU. I look forward to the mess they'll have when the EU tries to standardize education.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I look forward to the mess they'll have when the EU tries to standardize education.

Gee, thanks.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*pbbbbbbbtttt*

Oh, come on, you know it's true. Heck, The Economist just suggested your whole country had to go. A world government is exactly the same whether it's operated by formerly independent countries or General Electric and Blackwater. It's bound for corruption, either way.

Standardizing education across any continent is asking for trouble, as long as any diversity is desired.

Education, in the lower grades, at least, is naturally local. Thank goodness.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Oh, come on, you know it's true. Heck, The Economist just suggested your whole country had to go.

Not going into that. Too damn embarassing.

Standardizing education across any continent is asking for trouble, as long as any diversity is desired.

They could standardise to us. One of the few things we have to be proud of this day and age is very good eduction.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

They could standardise to us. One of the few things we have to be proud of this day and age is very good eduction.

*Sicilian teacher opens his new packet of "Official EU Curriculum guidelines, revised: 2009", skims the first page. Calls to his wife. "Loretta! Chica! It says here I have to teach the kids Flemish! What the heck is Flemish? I thought it was a kind of ham!"

People think we got trouble, lol.

[Earniel]

LOL!

Although I bet we'd probably have to add French as well for Wallonia's sake...

But I see your point, hm yes, they better think carefully about this standardisation thing.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Yes, I did watch your video, and it didn't make any point whatsoever, because there was no evidence whatsoever that any of it was true. Of course big money plays a big part in our government, but the idea that it's all part of a scheme to annihilate 80% of the population so the rich can have "The Fountain" to themselves...

I agree with Ron Paul on the idea that government should be smaller, and that more power should be given back to the states. But I still don't agree with some of his views, and think that some of his republican libertarian views are creating the problems we have today.

D.Sullivan, you want proof, I will give you proof.

Now, I should have realized that you are new here (relatively-27 posts) and have not seen or participated in threads I have started or participated in that relate to this topic; there are many such. So what I have done is repost links to them here so you can read them (make comments in them if you wish):

First, proof of human population reduction agenda:

UT professor Dr pianka

Now, the CAFR. If you watch the fist 10 minuites you will get the truth the video is trying to unveil. If you watch 20 minuits, you will need to close your mouth before it becomes a fly catcher. If you watch the 30 mins your jaw will hit the ground so hard it shatter tiles by your feet, 40 minuits, it's gonna happen again. by this time you will not be able to stop watching this thing.

CAFR

Here is a thread called Nineteen Eighty-four

There are other threads you can do searches for, there is one on "useless proffessions" (I entered that doctors where pretty useless it's true) and "whats happening to this country" and another on "eugenics."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Case in point, universal pre-school. For some people, this sounds like a swell opportunity to get "at risk" children into safe educational environments earlier. This also frees up their mothers to work. Who couldn't love that?

Well, for starters, people who don't want their kids in school. And researchers who worry about early academic pressure. And tax-payers who don't want higher bills to provide services that are mostly now privately funded. And child development experts who aren't sure about age segregating young children. And civil libertarians who resist having more years of our population under government supervision. Partial list, I could go longer.

Proof of my point, if you don't personally need it, then no one does.

Thankfully, a large population of americans don't mind taking a bit out of their pocket to help the children who need it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Proof of my point, if you don't personally need it, then no one does.

Thankfully, a large population of americans don't mind taking a bit out of their pocket to help the children who need it.

Do I hear a tiny violin? What is the translation of "the children who need it?" Would you perhaps mean PEOPLE OF COLOR? or POOR PEOPLE? or PEOPLE WHO DON"T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF EDUCATION I DO? or IMMIGRANTS? Thank goodness those people have someone to take their kids away from them so they can be raised to be white middleclass Protestants. Because we've already covered that they don't really care about their kids, anyway.That would be this post.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that all parents do care about their children, and have the time, money and ability to provide for them properly. Millions do not.

Yes, in fact I assume most people care about their children. I also believe they want the best for them. I also support their right to make the decision about WHAT is best for them, and not rely on a committee of educrats to tell them what is the best life for them to have. Compulsory public education has been used, time and again, to impose certain viewpoints on the population. Government education should be about providing opportunity, not about taking babies who aren't showing sufficient "learning readiness" to a poorly educated social worker, or are "at risk" because their parents are young. Because no one EVER rescues the babies of inadequate parents in the good neighborhoods.

We're not concerned about children, with this. We're just perpetuating class distinctions that leave some on top.

And, from a personal pov, I'd thank you to keep your assumptions about my class background out of these discussions. You embarrass yourself with such stereotyping.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

We're not concerned about children, with this. We're just perpetuating class distinctions that leave some on top.

So we stop perpetuating class distinctions by cutting the size of the government and cutting taxes, thus leaving more money in the pockets of the wealthy and providing fewer benefits for the poor.

[GrayMouser]

Oh,and Ron Paul?

I don’t need to tell you that our American way of life is under attack. We see it all around us — every day — and it is up to us to save it.

The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.

The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/20...ul-still-.html

So, aside from the fact that he's a raving loony, he'd make a great President

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Oh,and Ron Paul?


Quote:
I don’t need to tell you that our American way of life is under attack. We see it all around us — every day — and it is up to us to save it.

The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.

The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.



http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/20...ul-still-.html

So, aside from the fact that he's a raving loony, he'd make a great President

In my very first post in this thread, at the bottom, I gave a link to a speech that JFK gave. In that speech he pretty much said exactly what Ron Paul has said. Was he crazy too, he believed that there was a secret world wide conspiracy.

And the north american union treaty has been signed publicly (though it was not announced, so it might as well be in secret) since january 2006. You can do an easy search to find that out yourself.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

So we stop perpetuating class distinctions by cutting the size of the government and cutting taxes, thus leaving more money in the pockets of the wealthy and providing fewer benefits for the poor.

There are two parts to this discussion. One has to do with Ron Paul's Libertarian pov generally, with which, I, personally, have major disagreements. It isn't the Libertarians, however, who have presided over the massive transfer of money to the top 10 percent. That's the Bush administration. Their policies are anything but Libertarian. The 2nd has to do with the alternate extreme, which includes calls for more government to do more "for" everyone, but creates mandates that fall disproportionately on the poor and disenfranchised. The impact of NCLB, for example, has been an increased reliance on testing as a way to evaluate scholastic success. That naturally leads to "teaching to the test", which precludes more creative and individual instruction, which hurts poor kids in the public schools a lot more than rich kids with more options.

Universal preschool's major effect is getting kids out of their houses. Now, ask anyone who works in impoverished communities, and they'll tell you that the salvation of them is in strong familes and strong neighborhoods. You just do NOT develop strong families by splitting them up. We can use the government to support families, but you don't do that by weakening the bonds that connect families, you do it by empowering parents. Most people don't find it empowering to be told they aren't adequate to read see spot run to their own kids, and people who feel inadequate find something else to do. The more the government assumes responsibility the more it gets responsibility. It's called "learned helplessness", and our policies help create it on large scale.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Yes, in fact I assume most people care about their children. I also believe they want the best for them. I also support their right to make the decision about WHAT is best for them, and not rely on a committee of educrats to tell them what is the best life for them to have. Compulsory public education has been used, time and again, to impose certain viewpoints on the population. Government education should be about providing opportunity, not about taking babies who aren't showing sufficient "learning readiness" to a poorly educated social worker, or are "at risk" because their parents are young. Because no one EVER rescues the babies of inadequate parents in the good neighborhoods.

I don't know what country/state you live in, but nursery school is not compulsory, and neither is kindergarten. And, while school attendence is required between the ages of 6 and 16, federal and state laws allow anyone who chooses to find alternate forms of education, from private to homeschooling. So all your arguments about parents not being able to make the choice are complete unfounded in reality.

My assumption is that the above is a red herring, masking the true reason for disliking public education/programs: you don't want to pay for it. But, maybe it's something else. I'm not arguing that public education is perfect. I'm saying that in many cases, it's an awful lot better than the alternative, which is no education and maybe even little or no attention from ones parents.

As far as parents that don't care about their children, or have no clue how to be good parents, I've experienced many of them over the years. From poor alcoholic mothers who sometimes don't even regularly provide meals to their children, to rich stay-at-home mom's who send their kids to private school from 7am to 7pm so they can enjoy their social lives.

If we don't provide for these children as a country, no one will.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Just as in Numinore when the dunedain were estranged from the valar and not for the sake of the faithful or Tar - palantir's return to faithful rule, could numinore be saved, in that way too (in that way only) I feel Ron Paul could not save america; he is too late.

Maybe if he was president instead of the first bush or even Clinton, but now, no. You see I see this as a spiritual battle more so than a physical one. Just like Palantir, Ron Paul's policies are exactly what is needed, but the people (not just in america, this is a world desease) are degenerate, depraved, arrogant, pathetic, selfish, caluss, thus fearful: the wicked!!!

Though I believe the paradigm is shifting and the tide is turning, people are waking up to the machine, the lesson learned as a result of our folly cannot be fully appreciated/comprehended/understood before we face the consequences.

Alas!!!

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." Matthew 24:22

"Those days," these days , unless they are cut short no life, no flesh, will remain; but for the sake of the elect/the chosen/ the faithful, those days will be cut short, meaning an intervention by god/the savior (according to the bible - none here may need swear by it, I do not force you to) will happen to save the faithful.

Ron Paul is a sign of the time (JFK come again) but it is to late; I might be wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I know I am not; to my deepest horror and terror and regret and sadness.

I am afraid of what else, is to come. May god have mercy on us all.

It's going to get worse before it gets better...sucks...

[BeardofPants]

Cos we didn't have enough ... pleasure... reading your post the first time 'round?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Cos we didn't have enough ... pleasure... reading your post the first time 'round?

Aaaah, such a ray of sunshine u are...
Anyway, I think it is important.

[brownjenkins]

May god have mercy on us all.

I wouldn't count on it. His record isn't that good on mercy.

[The Telcontarion]

hahaahaaaa!!!

Depressing thread I know....cheers anyway.

The school stuff u were talking about brownjenkins - myself, I am all for home schooling, at the very least parents should have the choice to educate their children as they see fit. Ron Paul's position is that he is against the federal government making any decisions mandatory above parents wishes for their children. He believes local states should make their own laws concerning that issue anyway and would abolition the department of education within his first week of office.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

He believes local states should make their own laws concerning that issue anyway and would abolition the department of education within his first week of office.

The problem with this is that it doesn't work particularly well in cities and rich suburban neighborhoods, or in very poor rural neighborhoods.

Education is already payed for at the local level to a vast extent. This works fine in middle income towns, but in the very poor ones, their simply isn't enough revenue to support a decent education program if not for Federal Funding. "Keeping things local" is a nice concept until you factor in that many localities in the US are very poor.

On the flipside, in many affluent neighborhoods and cities, a vast majority of the population is quite well off and send their children to private school or home school. However, there is also a minority of the population that is quite poor and can't afford these options. Thus, the majority of affluent don't want to pay the taxes, and they have the political muscle to pass laws so that they do not have to. In these situations, it is the Federal government that provides the money to those that need it.

Our education system is already local. The Federal portion mostly just provides a safety net for the things local governments can not, or the majority in power in those local governments choose not, to provide.

I'm not saying that it doesn't have it's faults, but scrapping it would severly worsen the already bad options for education many children in our country have.