Will you retards stop using appeals to inevitability to justify your bigotry?

Johnny C, you are my favorite new poster. Your responses are thoughtful, and you do a great job of keeping the peace.

Like you, I am not willing to give up on the idea that society can be great. I think when a country gives up on that notion, they quickly head down the road to becoming a bitter, failed state.

Public education varies in quality. Here, in Chapel Hill, our kids get an education that rivals any private school. That's public record - we're nationally recognized. I wish I had lived here when I was a kid.

One of the reasons our schools are so good is because our community cares. It's a pretty liberal place, and people don't mind writing checks to support good things. As the government continues to slash the amount of money that gets used to actually educate kids, our town keeps voting for bonds to make our schools better.

Once could say that's community in action, and I would agree, but the fact is, we are middle class and can afford to do it. Ten minutes down the road, in Durham, many people aren't as well off, on the whole, as we are, and politically the town is all over the map.
In short, we have the luxury of making our kids smart here, by giving them what they need, and by giving them what they need, I think we've proven that the schools can work. When you overcrowd them, gut them and demean teachers with top heavy policy, it can not.

My wife and I will not have kids. Still, we vote for these bonds because it's the proper thing to do. We love our town and want it to be a good place to live.

The reason home schooling "works" is because a kid gets instruction, and isn't subject to diversions and temptations. Adding teachers and making class sizes smaller would do the same thing.
My experience with kids who were home schooled is that they are smart, but not as good at lateral thinking. They have only been exposed to one teacher, one set of opinions, and know very little about social interaction. The vast majority of the ones I know are evangelical Christian too.
So far I am not impressed with how they function in the real world, which is full of different opinions and can be very cruel.

As for healthcare, we've seen that the private sector can't do it, the math doesn't work, and the countries that have national health cherish it. I won't type any more about that since I said all I have to say about it in this thread.
I've exhaustively explained my opinion, well researched I might add, over many posts there, and in other places.
The military, highway system and other heavy lifting needs to be done by the government. How well they do it is up to us and who we elect.

Last of all, love or hate Clinton, but to compare his actions of "breaking eggs when necessary," which obviously I don't like, with the most secretive, malevolent, and cynical administration in our history is to ignore nuance. The short explanation is that Clinton was an intelligent, wonky, micro-managing, know-it-all, who thought he knew what was best for us, because smart people often do. Bush is a shallow, simpleton who is inflexible in his thinking.
The former, I think, actually wanted to do good things while in office, and, right or wrong, did a balancing act to keep everyone happy, including doing the covert stuff most presidents do.
The latter is a shill for big business who doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich. The weak sink, the rich float. In addition, he's clearly engaged in covert actions far beyond what most presidents have done.
To lump them into one category as "bad men" is to ignore that there are shades of grey. Something, actually, that I see home schooled people do an awful lot, I might add.

-A

Rick Reuben wrote:Watch your ad hominems here, please. Unless you can post evidence of anyone in this thread calling the MSM 'the liberal jew-run media', then don't make references as though anyone has.

Was that an ad hominem? I don't recall directing it at anyone in particular or saying it as anything other than a tongue-in-cheek remark.

China hasn't bothered with the American trade sanctions. They just don't care.

The NY Times, again, wrote:American sanctions have kept many companies from Europe and the United States out of Sudan, but firms from China, Malaysia, India, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are racing in. Direct foreign investment has shot up to $2.3 billion this year, from $128 million in 2000, all while the American government has tried to tighten the screws.

“...The government knows it doesn’t need America,” said Abda Yahia el-Mahdi, a former finance minister, now in private consulting. “The only people who are being hurt by the sanctions are the Americans, who are missing out on this huge boom.”

Besides, the bill wasn't a ban on dealings with Sudan. The bill was a ban on federal contracts going to companies that funnel money into Sudanese government operations fueling the conflict. Take a look:

What are the criteria for determining whether a companies business supports the genocide?

* The nature of the business relationship is with the national, regional, and local government of Sudan;
* The business is with the Government of Sudan or government-controlled entities (ex. Janjaweed);
* Their business operations are relating to the sale of military equipment or inherently "dual-use" technology, such as civilian radar systems;
* The business operations relate to natural resource extraction, including oil-related activities and mining of minerals; and
* The business lacks safeguards to ensure business operations do not become indirectly involved in the terrorist-sponsoring or genocidal policies of the Government of Sudan.

There we go. Interestingly enough, I've never seen any arguing that the conflict Sudan is as simple as Christian-south vs. Muslim-north, and so I did some research to back it up. That conflict and the Darfur conflict are basically seperate. The Darfur-region rebels are also Muslim, but the difference is that they are black.

I'll acknowledge you and Mr. Paul have a point in that the United States only gets called on to intervene in situations where oil is at risk. However, if it's a case for the government to take the idea to the U.N., where's Mr. Paul's suggestion for that? Where's his bill suggesting that the U.S. pressure the U.N. to intervene in the Congo? Instead, I simply get the creeping sensation that he brought up the Congo as more of an excuse than a justified reason for voting against this bill.

Of course, any Texas-based oil companies would have problems dealing with Sudan if this bill passed. I'm sure the thought didn't even cross Mr. Paul's mind, though.

Ron Paul's "political report" on the L.A. riots is here or here.

Repugnant piece of backwards shit. Period.

Andrew L. wrote:Ron Paul's "political report" on the L.A. riots is here or here.

Repugnant piece of backwards shit. Period.

"Liberal Statist" Jack Kemp.
Priceless.

Thanks for this Andrew. I'm now convinced that this guy will never get elected, and that makes me happy.

-A

Anybody who thinks that life for any of us would be better under a Ron Paul administration is out of his fucking mind.

Right wingers crush and abuse people like us, whether they cut our taxes or not. Whether the war ends or not. They are fundamentally vindictive, uncharitable, revenge-obsessed people who respect only other people like themselves.

Ron Paul can go fuck himself.

steve wrote:Anybody who thinks that life for any of us would be better under a Ron Paul administration is out of his fucking mind.

Right wingers crush and abuse people like us, whether they cut our taxes or not. Whether the war ends or not. They are fundamentally vindictive, uncharitable, revenge-obsessed people who respect only other people like themselves.

Ron Paul can go fuck himself.

THANK YOU. Perfect.

steve wrote:Anybody who thinks that life for any of us would be better under a Ron Paul administration is out of his fucking mind.

I am not out of my mind.

Andrew L. wrote:Ron Paul's "political report" on the L.A. riots is here or here.

Repugnant piece of backwards shit. Period.

If Im not mistaken, this is the piece that Paul didnt write, but was written under his name for his newsletter. He has since gone public and refuted this. This has been explained on this board before; you can find it with the search function.

It also runs completely contrary to his many other speeches given throughout his political career.

Did you see him at the African American PBS debate at all? Why dont you point out the real racists, like the candidates who declined to be there?

Rick Reuben wrote:You could find out for yourself that I'm telling you the truth, but you won't.

Why should the onus be on him and not you to provide the information necessary to qualify this statement? It seems like if you're trying to prove your side of a discussion you'd be the one backing it up. Also, weren't we supposed to be watching our ad hominems?

And who does own the Federal Reserve, according to Mr. Paul? There's a board in Washington, and Reserve Banks, I know that. Google tells me something called the "Federal Open Market Committee" is involved?

P.S. If it was so against his policies why did he let it get published? Does his stance on free speech override his stance on racism? He was the editor of the magazine at the time, if I'm not mistaken.