Originally posted by normbenign"High school students seem to really disparage and do the minimum possible despite many AP classes being made available in High School. "
I have no objection to public financing of education, other than that so far the indications are that Americans don't value what they get without cost. High school students seem to really disparage and do the minimum possible despite many AP classes being made available in High School. In an effort to equalize opportunity, we could limit or eliminate the motivations which identify special talents and abilities.
they are CHILDREN
what do you want them to do, make good life decisions at 14?
moreover this gets us back to our point: when a child knows his family is living on food stamps and there is no chance of him getting into college, what incentive does he have to perform well? will he get a better starting salary at mcdonalds?
with a free public education there will also be incentive to study well in highschool so you have the grades to get in. teens studying more means less gangbangers on the street as well. everybody prospers.
i understand your right wing free market nonsense is a religion but this is such an easy thing to understand. education benefits everyone. measures against free market economy (that appear so at first) benefit it more in the long run. we take those measures because we are not religious freaks but rational human beings with more understanding about how the economy works than what rush limbaugh and o'reilly spews at us.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour state worship has more in common with a religion than the knowledge that for a human to live fully as a human they need to be free from coercion. Your faith in the state as an all powerful, all loving majical friend parallels the god botherers faith in their imaginary friend .
"High school students seem to really disparage and do the minimum possible despite many AP classes being made available in High School. "
they are CHILDREN
what do you want them to do, make good life decisions at 14?
moreover this gets us back to our point: when a child knows his family is living on food stamps and there is no chance of him getting ...[text shortened]... more understanding about how the economy works than what rush limbaugh and o'reilly spews at us.
Originally posted by WajomaInteresting. Have you managed to find a way for the state to fund protection against force and fraud without coercion?
Your state worship has more in common with a religion than the knowledge that for a human to live fully as a human they need to be free from coercion. Your faith in the state as an all powerful, all loving majical friend parallels the god botherers faith in their imaginary friend .
Originally posted by bill718why does everyone keep saying that
I like Bernie. I do sincerely hope he becomes President. The chances are not promising though.
have you looked at the polls? 0.3% in iowa difference between clinton and there is still plenty of campaigning. sanders polls much better than ANY republican. he will destroy either cruz or trump if he gets the nomination.
the only question is if he gets to be president or hilary does. the majority of americans are not republican nutjobs who vote for cruz or trump because they hate the other of the two.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI'm fairly sure there's plenty of democrats who'll vote for a candidate they don't like simply Because they despise Trump and Cruz. Those are two candidates that are not only easy to hate, but lead in the republican election.
why does everyone keep saying that
have you looked at the polls? 0.3% in iowa difference between clinton and there is still plenty of campaigning. sanders polls much better than ANY republican. he will destroy either cruz or trump if he gets the nomination.
the only question is if he gets to be president or hilary does. the majority of americans are not republican nutjobs who vote for cruz or trump because they hate the other of the two.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhen does adulthood kick in, if ever, in a society which embraces use of drugs, and phony group rights.
"High school students seem to really disparage and do the minimum possible despite many AP classes being made available in High School. "
they are CHILDREN
what do you want them to do, make good life decisions at 14?
moreover this gets us back to our point: when a child knows his family is living on food stamps and there is no chance of him getting ...[text shortened]... more understanding about how the economy works than what rush limbaugh and o'reilly spews at us.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraRead some libertarian literature. Suggested authors: Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman Hoppe. Do so with an open mind. The answers are all there.
Interesting. Have you managed to find a way for the state to fund protection against force and fraud without coercion?
Originally posted by normbenignAccording to the numbers here in items 1, 2, 3 and 23, over 400,000 people are currently incarcerated solely or primarily for drug offenses and a further 1.25 million are either on parole or probation for the same.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.eXrUSl8i.dpbs
When does adulthood kick in, if ever, in a society which embraces use of drugs, and phony group rights.
This amounts to "a society which embraces use of drugs" in Norm's BizarroWorld.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI would think you'd be embarrassed to keep referencing Hoppe since his "libertarian" paradise relies on a rejection of democratic principles and the expulsion of numerous minority groups.
Read some libertarian literature. Suggested authors: Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman Hoppe. Do so with an open mind. The answers are all there.
Rothbard is more interesting, but he is an anarchist which you claim not to be.
Originally posted by normbenignNo they aren't, you can't levy taxes without coercion and you can't have an effective government without taxes. So what's left without taxes is exchanging the coercion of collective consensus for the coercion of the biggest bully. I know what I prefer.
Read some libertarian literature. Suggested authors: Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman Hoppe. Do so with an open mind. The answers are all there.
Originally posted by vivifyThe despise factor is big, and primarily why Bernie is within shouting distance. Hillary C has probably the highest negatives ever for a Presidential hopeful. Most people thought she was done after Benghazi and the Emails, but she's like heartburn after spicy food. Just keeps coming back.
I'm fairly sure there's plenty of democrats who'll vote for a candidate they don't like simply Because they despise Trump and Cruz. Those are two candidates that are not only easy to hate, but lead in the republican election.
Bernie seems a nice enough guy, but the further from Vermont the fewer know and recognize him, and we know that only political junkies are paying attention now. In the general, should he win the nomination, he'd be at a big disadvantage to anyone with more name recognition. Sadly, general election voters don't pay much attention till the finalists are chosen at the conventions, leaving just two months to make an impression.
The old 30-40-30 formulation comes into play. Some would make it 40-30-40. Party loyalist voters are the first and last numbers. Elections are said to be decided by those in the middle, the undecideds or independents either 30% or 40% of those who cast ballots in the general.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou can have much lower levels of taxation, and use taxation methods that are less invasive and less coercive, if you need less revenue. What consumes huge amounts of revenue, and increases the need for taxation are government programs supported by only minorities or threadbare majorities. Some are supported by almost nobody, but manage to survive.
No they aren't, you can't levy taxes without coercion and you can't have an effective government without taxes. So what's left without taxes is exchanging the coercion of collective consensus for the coercion of the biggest bully. I know what I prefer.
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastFor awhile there were 5 Green Party presidential candidates. My friend's dad was one of them. http://www.billkreml.org/ However, this is too important an election, aren't they all, to not vote.
You could vote for Dr. Jill Stein, who will be on the Green Party ticket again this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
http://www.gp.org/
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignAccording to Gallup, Trump has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate for the Presidency since they started asking that question in 1992. But his 60% negative isn't all that much higher than Hillary's 52% and if the GOP doesn't commit electoral suicide by nominating Trump or (probably) Cruz, I'd say that Clinton will be a slight underdog against most of the other viable candidates.
The despise factor is big, and primarily why Bernie is within shouting distance. Hillary C has probably the highest negatives ever for a Presidential hopeful. Most people thought she was done after Benghazi and the Emails, but she's like heartburn after spicy food. Just keeps coming back.
Bernie seems a nice enough guy, but the further from Vermont ...[text shortened]... ddle, the undecideds or independents either 30% or 40% of those who cast ballots in the general.
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188936/trump-negative-image.aspx