Ron Paul for president of USA 08? Your thoughts.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't know what country/state you live in, but nursery school is not compulsory, and neither is kindergarten.

But, since this example was ABOUT "universal pre-school", discussing it as that is germane. You are aware that many people suggest that compulsory schooling be extended to the lower grades, aren't you?

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.

Tell that the the shelter parent in KC who is being forced, right now, to put her child in school. She has all the options she needs, if she wants to live on the curb. Not to mention the custody suits and neglect charges being filed all over.

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.

Incorrect assumption. By that logic, no renters would take their kids out of public schools. People have a NUMBER of reasons that they feel public school is failing us, as a country. And numbers of reasons why it looks fixable to them, or not. Dismissing these concerns as "too cheap/heartless to pay for the kids that need our help" is not understanding and giving credit to real issues being raised.

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.

In many cases, putting people in jail, or in the military, could be 'the better alternative', right? I mean, it provides structure, 3 meals a day, gives people a way to contribute... But we, as a society, don't have compulsory military service, and perfer not to put people in jail. I have a cousin who spends a lot of time in jail. She's drug addicted. I can say truthfully, that her relatives breathe a collective sigh of relief when we know she's in, because she's safer there. And maybe she'll happen to learn something, who knows. But addressing HER problem doesn't require that everyone have to go to jail, even though maybe people would take more interest in prison conditions if they spent time there. Even though it's a publicly funded program.

The government publicly funds colleges without requiring people to go. Yet they go. I think education in the lower grades could work similarly.

And this, which I happened to run into, about what "not supporting public school" means to one family. http://www.mothering.com/articles/gr...-families.html

[brownjenkins]

More red herrings! Your jihad against compulsory anything is clouding your vision.

Let's try this: If schooling was 100% optional, would you be willing to donate tax dollars to help children whose parents couldn't afford private education and couldn't homeschool their kids because they either aren't educated enough themselves or simply don't have the time to do both that and put food on the table?

The above is probably true for at least 50% of the families in america.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

More red herrings! Your jihad against compulsory anything is clouding your vision.

Let's try this: If schooling was 100% optional, would you be willing to donate tax dollars to help children whose parents couldn't afford private education and couldn't homeschool their kids because they either aren't educated enough themselves or simply don't have the time to do both that and put food on the table?

The above is probably true for at least 50% of the families in america.

Ah, my jihad. I had forgotten I was a crazed fundamentalist mullah. Your evidence for that would be...?

I would absolutely support public education. In fact, I do, both by activism, and by tax dollars. But here's the deal. This lists the cost per student of public ed. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/expendit...es/table_3.asp In my state (which is very small and homogeneous) the average cost per pupil is $10,212. Here is a local Catholic prep school tuition. http://www.paduaacademy.org/padua.aspx?pgID=959

Here is the most expensive tuition in the state, non-boarding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Hill_School

Here's the state supported community college
http://www.dtcc.edu/all/fees/

Here's the State University
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...1431_brief.php

So, for my tax dollars in education, a child could get a year in a public school that fails its OWN tests, or slightly over a year at a very good Catholic Prep school, or almost half the tuition at the pricest prep school here, or 10 years of college at the 2 year school, or a year at the university and a semester of room and board. Why is our public school system so expensive AND inefficient?

Do you hear how frustrated I am? Our per pupil expenditure at the State School for the Deaf is less than the average expenditure for the state. Who NEEDS this money?

I am not against government. I'm not even against taxes (you would laugh if you were looking at my resume.) But somewhere we have to figure out a way to match the needs of the society with the structure that meets them, and as far as education is concerned, the government hasn't done the job, at least around here.

We need an alternative that works for families, or probably several.

[brownjenkins]

I have no problem with giving people a 10k voucher a year for education and letting parents choose where to spend it at. My main point is that a large portion of the population can't afford 10k a year themselves and, if you simply let them keep that tax money, a whole bunch of them would spend it on things other than their child's education.

That's why the taxes/government is a necessary part of the picture where education is concerned.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I have no problem with giving people a 10k voucher a year for education and letting parents choose where to spend it at. My main point is that a large portion of the population can't afford 10k a year themselves and, if you simply let them keep that tax money, a whole bunch of them would spend it on things other than their child's education.

That's why the taxes/government is a necessary part of the picture where education is concerned.

Okay, now we're making progress. Will the 10 k be distributed by the federal government, or at a state level? 10 k is different money, in different areas.

[brownjenkins]

The main point is that it's collected at a federal level, since leaving the collections at a local level leads to some of the situations I alluded too earlier. Middle class neighborhoods do fine, but poor neighborhoods have little base to collect from and rich neighborhoods, many of whose members don't need the tax money and have most of the control in their local governments, won't vote to raise the necessary taxes to cover those in their neighborhoods that can't afford it themselves.

As far as distrubution goes, it's up to the parents to choose what school they put the money, and their children, into. And, as to how much to provide each child with, the local markets would dictate what amount is necessary.

Basically you'd end up with a voucher-type system where most children still went to "public" schools, but the parents would have more influence over how that school performs because they would be free to take their children, and the money, elsewhere.

[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...

Here is a chilling 7 minuite video, a quote, "...so just enjoy your death and the world government loves you, because the tv says so." lol

Here is more proof that they are poisoning us and running illegal experiments on us. The goal is human population reduction. They are killing us, again, they have stated this themselves.

Here, again your government loves you, I here it on tv everday...hahahaahahahaaaaah.

bush family nazi connection

This is why Ron Paul should be president he is not one of the these satanic draconian degenerate, weak, pathetic vultures, he is one of us. He is not a member of the CFR like other presidential candidate.

NO TO Rockefeller's CFR/TC/Bilderberger AGENDA
*** Only Ron Paul & Mike Gravel are ANTI-CFR candidates ***
Rudy Giuliani - CFR (R)
Fred Thompson - CFR (R)
Mitt Romney - CFR (R)
John McCain - CFR (R)
Newt Gingrich - CFR (R)
Hillary Clinton - CFR (D)
Barack Obama - CFR (D)
Christopher Dodd - CFR (D)
Bill Richardson - CFR (D)
Rockefeller CFR candidates and incumbents in both parties must be exposed and ousted.
YouTube search: David Rockefeller Fears Ron Paul

Ron Paul for president!!!

[The Telcontarion]

Ron Paul revolution must be now!!!!

[The Telcontarion]

On the 5th of November, Ron Paul broke records for raising money in one day online. Almost 5 million dollars.

[The Telcontarion]

Amazing video on why Ron Paul can save this country. It is his economic policies. Ron Paul : House of Cards

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

lol. We might have to move this to the advertising thread, dude.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

lol. We might have to move this to the advertising thread, dude.

Well, just bringing up a valid point about Dr Paul's proposed policies. They are "radical" yet historically sound from a economic stand point that most people are not familiar with. I think in this thread, talking about that would be a better way to approach this than talking about random issues like education (which is fine later) as of now the main issue with Paul is his ideas about economics and foriegn policy.

[Mari]

When reading all the things on the American presidency etc. it makes me think of only one thing: I'm glad I'm not American.
It sounds like such a hassle.
I know, I'm lazy.
I wonder if the new president will end the war on terrorism or let it die all by itself or will continue with it. For me as a foreigner, there's nothing to do but wait and see how it works out.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Well, just bringing up a valid point about Dr Paul's proposed policies. They are "radical" yet historically sound from a economic stand point that most people are not familiar with. I think in this thread, talking about that would be a better way to approach this than talking about random issues like education (which is fine later) as of now the main issue with Paul is his ideas about economics and foriegn policy.

I don't agree. Ron Paul is running pretty hard for the homeschooling vote, so discussing his posted educational platform is appropriate.

Do you think no one has heard of free markets and isolationism? I think they're pretty common points of discussion, during election campaigns.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Mari

When reading all the things on the American presidency etc. it makes me think of only one thing: I'm glad I'm not American.
It sounds like such a hassle.

How so? The party system in most western european democracies confuses me. Why would you let a party pick a leader? Those people are crazy.

I'm not quite sure what system you use in the Netherlands, exactly.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Mari

When reading all the things on the American presidency etc. it makes me think of only one thing: I'm glad I'm not American. It sounds like such a hassle.

So true. Then again, it isn't like our politicians are any better, mind you.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

How so? The party system in most western european democracies confuses me. Why would you let a party pick a leader? Those people are crazy.

Trust me, it confuses a great deal of people here too.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

The very idea that Mike Duncan and Howard Dean would have any larger responsibilities makes my blood run cold.

[Mari]

Well if I understand it correctly, you don't just choose a party, but also choose a person from that party. I missed two elections, so I've never really participated.

But truth be told, Dutch politics sucks. They all say the same thing which is that whats most popular at the moment, don't have any good ideas on how to implement those things and preferably contradict themselves and their points at every turn. And then there are the lunatic parties off course whose points are one idiocracy or outrage after another.

I so need to start my own party and do more then just trying to win votes...
I would rule the world!!! Mwuhahaha!!! O wait, it would only be the Netherlands... never mind then

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't agree. Ron Paul is running pretty hard for the homeschooling vote, so discussing his posted educational platform is appropriate.

Do you think no one has heard of free markets and isolationism? I think they're pretty common points of discussion, during election campaigns.

My apoligies, of course, you are right. I guess I should just say that bringing up the economic policies that Paul proposes is just as legit.

[elven dragonrider]

Omg at first I thought you were talking about the Pope!!! rofl!! I was like there is a discussion about voting the Pope for president?!?!!!!
hahahahahahhahahahh!!

Seperation of church and state meets a new low... haha!