Separation of Powers is a myth anyway. Congress represents the people, and the people being the originators of government power and authority, have oversight over all areas of government.
The end of Article 1, Section 8 explicitly states this: "Congress shall have the Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
You should try actually reading the Constitution. The President does not have all the powers you imagine he has, and, in fact, today's presidency is far beyond what it should be.
The ONLY exclusive power the President has is to grant pardons and reprieves. All other powers are subject to approval by Congress. Even the, much flaunted, Commander-in-Chief power: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" (emphasis mine).
Congress calls the military into service - "The Congress shall have the Power... To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
If that is not enough for you, read further down (powers of Congress):
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So, you see, Congress has the power to make laws concerning all the power given to the entirety of the Federal government, President included. It really is supposed to be the supreme branch, not co-equal. Too bad today's Congress has no spine and no intelligence.
The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document that applies to those who are part of the compact and as such (of course) only applies to citizens.
So are you saying that Constitutional protections against bills of attainder, the right of free speech, the right not to self-incriminate, etc. could be Constitutionally denied to non-citizens?
The preamble is a statement of purpose for the Constitution. It's there so that when Congress makes laws it can look back at it and see if those laws further one of the goals that it was established for. It is also meant to clearly convey that the people, themselves, set up this government and it is they that have the ultimate authority to dispose of it.
The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.)
I agree. I have never stated otherwise.
Your point that the Constitution applies to all humans no matter what is just wrong--silly wrong, in fact.
Natural rights apply to all humans. The Constitution was crafted to protect those natural rights by limiting the power of the government it established. I agree that being a captured enemy soldier/combatant is not a violation of your natural rights, but being held indefinitely without the ability to defend yourself in court is. As long as there are clearly established rules for adjudicating those cases in a timely fassion, and not "I'm the president, I'll do what I want" then it would be acceptable - it doesn't necessarily have to be the same legal system we use domestically, but it does need to be a system established by Congress, not the executive. If we allow the executive to be prosecutor, and judge and allow him to keep potentially innocent people locked up forever with no evidence, then we are treating them as less than human.
When a State of War obtains, bad sh*t happens. That's why we should prefer to operate within civil society. But this nonsense about the civil laws and courts as the natural due of those who stand with respect to us as in a State of Nature and even in a State of War just has to stop.
More generally, people need to get ahold of their rational faculty and think about these matters more clearly. I think an irrational hatred of a specific administration is clouding judgment here. If Obama releases these folks and one of them commits an act of terror, the folks clamoring for these silly notions (e.g., that the same rules of evidence that should apply within the context of a civil authority should also apply to enemy combatants) will have done their own cause (which I assume--hope?--is Justice) a grave disservice.
I don't just hate the Bush administration. Obama doesn't look like he will turn out any better. The problem is too much power usurped by presidents over the last century. Congress needs to grow a backbone.
The Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it affirms the natural rights of individuals. Therefore, by saying that non-citizens have different rights, you would be adding meaning that is not supported by the text of Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
The natural rights described by the Declaration and affirmed by the Bill of Rights were meant to apply to all individuals; they are inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, or natural rights we have by virtue of being human, whichever you prefer.
That is a philosophical statement. The political reality of the time is that slavery existed, and the Constitution could not have been ratified without the participation of the southern colonies, so some compromises had to be made for the time being. However, the founders thought that slavery would eventually end, so one of the reasons they avoided using the word 'slave' in the Constitution is so that future generations would not be embarrassed by the fact that slavery once existed in America.
As for women not voting: there doesn't seem to be any historical written evidence that they even wanted to. At the time, it was just accepted that the man of the house voted on behalf of the whole family. It wasn't until much later that women began to feel that they were being wronged by not being allowed to vote.
It sounds like you've almost described the situation as it already is.
For "poor" families (like mine, parents are divorced and my mom makes less than $19k supporting 4 people), government aid will fully pay for tuition and maybe even a little more. If your family makes enough, you pay your own way. I guess that is the difference, but I think that is pretty fair.
I put "poor" in quotes because poor people in this country are not really all that poor compared to poor in other countries. And we certainly weren't that bad off, I have no complaints.
I see, it looks like you're taking exception to the fact that I attributed poor performance with the school itself, rather than the parents. You're right, I didn't mean to imply that it was the school's fault, and I should have phrased that differently.
But it goes back to my original point that trying to "level the field" by throwing more money at those schools won't work, because the parents still won't care.
I didn't mean to sound elitist, but I think I can see why you would say that. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I'm just proud of my parents for caring about my education (among so many other things). I will try to be more careful about that in the future.
You're confusing ideas with policy. As human beings we all have differing ideas and opinions. We don't all have common ideas, otherwise we wouldn't really need parliamentary bodies or elections. But out of those ideas we pick the most popular to become policy and follow them.
The reason government is not like a corporation is because, with government, the workers (representatives, senators, executives) are employed by the people, and can be removed by them if they don't follow the will of the majority. The managers of a corporation cannot be voted out by the workers they manage.
The way you explain how the federal government works sounds like this to me: it has ultimate power, and can do anything it wants, but some cases allows regional governments to make decisions because it thinks they would best be suited to deal with them.
If I understood that correctly, I still disagree with you. The federal government does not have ultimate power. If they one day decided "Hey, we think you guys hired the wrong gardener for this park. We're hiring this other guy for you, instead," they could not do it. The local government and the people there will oppose it, and the courts will strike the action down as unconstitutional. Of course, the gardener example is just a dumb example, but it can be applied to pretty much any power that is not given to the federal government in the Constitution. Keep this in mind when you think about what the federal government can do: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment to the Constitution)
On the war issue, again, people have differing opinions, but once a policy is decided we all have to go with it. Of course we can't let ourselves be divided once the decision is made.
But to make another correction, the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president.
My teachers were good. By crappy schools, I mean that most kids perform badly there. They consistently score less than the state average. (Stats are for recent years, obviously were different when I went to school)
I did well because my parents would not allow otherwise. They always made sure I was doing my school work and if I brought home a bad grade, it meant trouble for me.
We did eventually move to the suburbs (my mom got a job housekeeping for an apartment complex and they offered us a much reduced rent), so we did go to better schools eventually. When we did, I was still scoring above average (85-90th percentile). That is because, despite having been at an under-performing school, I still learned well because of the importance my parents placed on my education.
Sorry, this thread has so many branches in tt that it's hard to keep track of it. But someone was suggesting it is unfair for some to have a better education than others and that we should make them all equal. My point is that can't be done.
I was not attempting to make a strawman. It is obvious that we can't make those things illegal, that was my point. We can't make education equal, because there will always be people with more money and they will be able to afford better things for their kids.
I didn't say public school funding is not important. I said we will never be able to make everyone's education the same, and trying to do it will only degrade the quality of the best schools.
Here is a link to a rating for that school district. Of course, those are current stats and I went to school there quite some time ago, so I'm not too sure how different it is.
I only went there for elementary school, but I was consistently placed in the advanced reading groups, and whatever the had available for the smarter kids. When we did move to the suburbs, I was still in the 85-90th percentile on most tests.
All my teachers in the city schools were great, and I remember them all. The supplies we had were not great, but they were adequate, I'd say. I was the shy kid that didn't get into trouble and learned quickly. Others around me were not. Their parents did not encourage them like mine did.
Ignoring your ridiculous government=corporation analogy...
I think history disagrees with you. There is almost never a consensus on what should be done. Our Constitution, out politics, in general, are full of compromises. There will always be competing ideas. The Federalist Papers presents that as essential to liberty. It prevents any one idea or group from gaining a tyrannical majority.
You say that things tend to work out better with a centrally managed common goal, but can you give an example of that?
And on your last point: Our system was constructed from the bottom up. Town, and local governments were established before state ones, and the Federal government was last. The central government only has the authority the people have given it. So how can it pass down responsibility to "lower" levels, when it was never given that responsibility from them to begin with?
Wow, calm down a little there. You're getting agitated for no reason.
First of all, I really was talking about the Federal government, and I'm sorry that I wasn't more specific about that.
Secondly, at no time did I mention the phrase "private sector," let alone that everything should be done by it.
What I said was that we are capable of organizing our own local school systems. "We" means our various local governments which we use as agents to organize ourselves.
National Security and Defense are properly ensured by the Federal Government under the Constitution. Everything else you mentioned can be dealt with by local and state governments (which are closer to "We, the people"), with some guide by the Federal government when multiple states are involved.
I don't know where the notion came from that I advocate that everything should be done by the private sector, but it is not the case.
We are perfectly capable of organizing our own local educational systems. Some of them won't be as good as others, but they can learn from the ones that are successful.
Having the government plan it, and run it, will just guarantee that the quality continues to degrade universally.
To which HungryHobo replied:
In the interest of trying to give people some sembelance of an equal playing field it can be a good idea to average things out a little in education.
Maybe I misinterpreted that. If so, I apologize. But to "average things out" you would need to make the best schools worse, and (try) to make the worst schools better.
But anyway, my point was that making education equal for everyone is not remotely possible. I want to give my children the best opportunities I can. That may mean sending them to a private school, or maybe I will not even be satisfied with that and decide to home-school them for a portion of their education (like their early education where I think pretty much all schools are lacking).
How do you average that out? Do you make private schools or home-schooling illegal? It's just not possible in a free country. If you take away people's freedoms, then maybe you can make all education equal, but it won't be very good.
Ah, yes, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the Federal government. My point was that local governments are better equipped at deciding what is best for their situation than some distant group of people in DC.
If Obama has inspired you to get involved in your community, then I applaud you.
My parents were poor. My dad came by himself first, and managed to get a factory job at Kodak. While he was here he missed my birth. He saved all the money he could so he could bring my mom and me. I was two years old when that finally happened.
You're contradicting yourself.
You say that if two people start off equal, and one ends up rich while the other ends up poor, you're okay with that. But just before that you said it's not fair that some people are rich and others are poor. The child of that rich man is going to start out rich, and the child of the poor man will start out poor. The rich man is going to want to give his child the greatest education he can afford to give. The poor man will not be able to provide the same, although he can make the child value learning; ultimately, what is possible in one's education is up to the individual. There is nothing the government can do to magically make everyone's education equal.
The fact is that there always have been, and always will be some people who are poor. Some of them will be able to climb out of it, some won't. Any time humans have tried to fix that they just end up making everyone poor.
It is difficult to rebut what you say because it is the exact opposite of what I've been hearing and reading, which makes me think it is simply untrue.
If you could show me an article, or something, that talks about large numbers of loans Fannie and Freddie would not buy, then you may be on to something. Right now, it just sounds made-up. I'm not saying that you made it up, or are lying, just that everything I have read contradicts you.
My parents immigrated to this country when I was 2. My dad had only a high school education, and my mom a middle school education. My brother and I are the first generation of our family to totally grow up in the US and get college educations.
So, if we become financially successful, and can afford to give our children a better education, you want to deny us that "In the interest of trying to give people some sembelance of an equal playing field?"
That is just immoral.
We went to crappy city schools, and still learned well, because our parents instilled in us a sense of how important our education is. There is nothing the government can do to take the place of that.
Education will never be equal for everyone, and that is the major problem with the ideologues that wish it to be so. It is futile and can only degrade our education system on the whole, not "average things out."
Yes, this is the most important election of our lifetimes since the last most important election of our lifetimes.
Seriously, people say that for every presidential election. I wish we wouldn't make such a big deal out of the president and paid more attention to Congress.
They may have originated with those banks, but because Fannie and Freddie were buying up those mortgages and they had an implicit government guarantee. If Fannie and Freddie didn't exist, those private investment banks would not have had an irresponsible gov't entity to sell their questionable loans to, so they would have had to scrutinize their borrowers more.
It is not the government's job to plan things for us. It is hilariously bad at it, anyway. It is the government's job to protect our liberties so we can do things ourselves.
We are perfectly capable of organizing our own local educational systems. Some of them won't be as good as others, but they can learn from the ones that are successful.
Having the government plan it, and run it, will just guarantee that the quality continues to degrade universally.
"If you think about the fact that.NET loads DLLs into the browser itself and then Microsoft assumes they're safe because they're.NET objects, you see that Microsoft didn't think about the idea that these could be used as stepping stones for other attacks. This is a real tour de force."
So in other words, like 80+% of the other exploits on web, the exploit only works if you use Internet Explorer?
From TFA:
This feat was achieved by taking advantage of the way that Internet Explorer (and other browsers) handle active scripting in the Operating System. (emphasis added)
Slashdot Mirror
That's not capitalism, that is stupidity. When they go bankrupt, that is capitalism removing the inefficient supplier from the market.
And I can do whatever I please, so long as the police do not catch me.
Sorry, but that argument just doesn't do it for me.
Separation of Powers is a myth anyway. Congress represents the people, and the people being the originators of government power and authority, have oversight over all areas of government.
The end of Article 1, Section 8 explicitly states this: "Congress shall have the Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
You should try actually reading the Constitution. The President does not have all the powers you imagine he has, and, in fact, today's presidency is far beyond what it should be.
The ONLY exclusive power the President has is to grant pardons and reprieves. All other powers are subject to approval by Congress. Even the, much flaunted, Commander-in-Chief power: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" (emphasis mine).
Congress calls the military into service -
"The Congress shall have the Power... To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
If that is not enough for you, read further down (powers of Congress):
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So, you see, Congress has the power to make laws concerning all the power given to the entirety of the Federal government, President included. It really is supposed to be the supreme branch, not co-equal. Too bad today's Congress has no spine and no intelligence.
The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document that applies to those who are part of the compact and as such (of course) only applies to citizens.
So are you saying that Constitutional protections against bills of attainder, the right of free speech, the right not to self-incriminate, etc. could be Constitutionally denied to non-citizens?
The preamble is a statement of purpose for the Constitution. It's there so that when Congress makes laws it can look back at it and see if those laws further one of the goals that it was established for. It is also meant to clearly convey that the people, themselves, set up this government and it is they that have the ultimate authority to dispose of it.
The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.)
I agree. I have never stated otherwise.
Your point that the Constitution applies to all humans no matter what is just wrong--silly wrong, in fact.
Natural rights apply to all humans. The Constitution was crafted to protect those natural rights by limiting the power of the government it established. I agree that being a captured enemy soldier/combatant is not a violation of your natural rights, but being held indefinitely without the ability to defend yourself in court is. As long as there are clearly established rules for adjudicating those cases in a timely fassion, and not "I'm the president, I'll do what I want" then it would be acceptable - it doesn't necessarily have to be the same legal system we use domestically, but it does need to be a system established by Congress, not the executive. If we allow the executive to be prosecutor, and judge and allow him to keep potentially innocent people locked up forever with no evidence, then we are treating them as less than human.
When a State of War obtains, bad sh*t happens. That's why we should prefer to operate within civil society. But this nonsense about the civil laws and courts as the natural due of those who stand with respect to us as in a State of Nature and even in a State of War just has to stop.
More generally, people need to get ahold of their rational faculty and think about these matters more clearly. I think an irrational hatred of a specific administration is clouding judgment here. If Obama releases these folks and one of them commits an act of terror, the folks clamoring for these silly notions (e.g., that the same rules of evidence that should apply within the context of a civil authority should also apply to enemy combatants) will have done their own cause (which I assume--hope?--is Justice) a grave disservice.
I don't just hate the Bush administration. Obama doesn't look like he will turn out any better. The problem is too much power usurped by presidents over the last century. Congress needs to grow a backbone.
The Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it affirms the natural rights of individuals. Therefore, by saying that non-citizens have different rights, you would be adding meaning that is not supported by the text of Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
The natural rights described by the Declaration and affirmed by the Bill of Rights were meant to apply to all individuals; they are inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, or natural rights we have by virtue of being human, whichever you prefer.
That is a philosophical statement. The political reality of the time is that slavery existed, and the Constitution could not have been ratified without the participation of the southern colonies, so some compromises had to be made for the time being. However, the founders thought that slavery would eventually end, so one of the reasons they avoided using the word 'slave' in the Constitution is so that future generations would not be embarrassed by the fact that slavery once existed in America.
As for women not voting: there doesn't seem to be any historical written evidence that they even wanted to. At the time, it was just accepted that the man of the house voted on behalf of the whole family. It wasn't until much later that women began to feel that they were being wronged by not being allowed to vote.
So they make soup for you too? I think you meant "suped up", as in, supered.
I guess it was just a flesh wound.
It sounds like you've almost described the situation as it already is.
For "poor" families (like mine, parents are divorced and my mom makes less than $19k supporting 4 people), government aid will fully pay for tuition and maybe even a little more. If your family makes enough, you pay your own way. I guess that is the difference, but I think that is pretty fair.
I put "poor" in quotes because poor people in this country are not really all that poor compared to poor in other countries. And we certainly weren't that bad off, I have no complaints.
I see, it looks like you're taking exception to the fact that I attributed poor performance with the school itself, rather than the parents. You're right, I didn't mean to imply that it was the school's fault, and I should have phrased that differently.
But it goes back to my original point that trying to "level the field" by throwing more money at those schools won't work, because the parents still won't care.
I didn't mean to sound elitist, but I think I can see why you would say that. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I'm just proud of my parents for caring about my education (among so many other things). I will try to be more careful about that in the future.
You're confusing ideas with policy. As human beings we all have differing ideas and opinions. We don't all have common ideas, otherwise we wouldn't really need parliamentary bodies or elections. But out of those ideas we pick the most popular to become policy and follow them.
The reason government is not like a corporation is because, with government, the workers (representatives, senators, executives) are employed by the people, and can be removed by them if they don't follow the will of the majority. The managers of a corporation cannot be voted out by the workers they manage.
The way you explain how the federal government works sounds like this to me: it has ultimate power, and can do anything it wants, but some cases allows regional governments to make decisions because it thinks they would best be suited to deal with them.
If I understood that correctly, I still disagree with you. The federal government does not have ultimate power. If they one day decided "Hey, we think you guys hired the wrong gardener for this park. We're hiring this other guy for you, instead," they could not do it. The local government and the people there will oppose it, and the courts will strike the action down as unconstitutional. Of course, the gardener example is just a dumb example, but it can be applied to pretty much any power that is not given to the federal government in the Constitution. Keep this in mind when you think about what the federal government can do:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment to the Constitution)
On the war issue, again, people have differing opinions, but once a policy is decided we all have to go with it. Of course we can't let ourselves be divided once the decision is made.
But to make another correction, the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president.
My teachers were good. By crappy schools, I mean that most kids perform badly there. They consistently score less than the state average. (Stats are for recent years, obviously were different when I went to school)
I did well because my parents would not allow otherwise. They always made sure I was doing my school work and if I brought home a bad grade, it meant trouble for me.
We did eventually move to the suburbs (my mom got a job housekeeping for an apartment complex and they offered us a much reduced rent), so we did go to better schools eventually. When we did, I was still scoring above average (85-90th percentile). That is because, despite having been at an under-performing school, I still learned well because of the importance my parents placed on my education.
Sorry, this thread has so many branches in tt that it's hard to keep track of it. But someone was suggesting it is unfair for some to have a better education than others and that we should make them all equal. My point is that can't be done.
I was not attempting to make a strawman. It is obvious that we can't make those things illegal, that was my point. We can't make education equal, because there will always be people with more money and they will be able to afford better things for their kids.
I didn't say public school funding is not important. I said we will never be able to make everyone's education the same, and trying to do it will only degrade the quality of the best schools.
Here is a link to a rating for that school district. Of course, those are current stats and I went to school there quite some time ago, so I'm not too sure how different it is.
I only went there for elementary school, but I was consistently placed in the advanced reading groups, and whatever the had available for the smarter kids. When we did move to the suburbs, I was still in the 85-90th percentile on most tests.
All my teachers in the city schools were great, and I remember them all. The supplies we had were not great, but they were adequate, I'd say. I was the shy kid that didn't get into trouble and learned quickly. Others around me were not. Their parents did not encourage them like mine did.
Ignoring your ridiculous government=corporation analogy...
I think history disagrees with you. There is almost never a consensus on what should be done. Our Constitution, out politics, in general, are full of compromises. There will always be competing ideas. The Federalist Papers presents that as essential to liberty. It prevents any one idea or group from gaining a tyrannical majority.
You say that things tend to work out better with a centrally managed common goal, but can you give an example of that?
And on your last point: Our system was constructed from the bottom up. Town, and local governments were established before state ones, and the Federal government was last. The central government only has the authority the people have given it. So how can it pass down responsibility to "lower" levels, when it was never given that responsibility from them to begin with?
Wow, calm down a little there. You're getting agitated for no reason.
First of all, I really was talking about the Federal government, and I'm sorry that I wasn't more specific about that.
Secondly, at no time did I mention the phrase "private sector," let alone that everything should be done by it.
What I said was that we are capable of organizing our own local school systems. "We" means our various local governments which we use as agents to organize ourselves.
National Security and Defense are properly ensured by the Federal Government under the Constitution. Everything else you mentioned can be dealt with by local and state governments (which are closer to "We, the people"), with some guide by the Federal government when multiple states are involved.
I don't know where the notion came from that I advocate that everything should be done by the private sector, but it is not the case.
I said:
We are perfectly capable of organizing our own local educational systems. Some of them won't be as good as others, but they can learn from the ones that are successful.
Having the government plan it, and run it, will just guarantee that the quality continues to degrade universally.
To which HungryHobo replied:
In the interest of trying to give people some sembelance of an equal playing field it can be a good idea to average things out a little in education.
Maybe I misinterpreted that. If so, I apologize. But to "average things out" you would need to make the best schools worse, and (try) to make the worst schools better.
But anyway, my point was that making education equal for everyone is not remotely possible. I want to give my children the best opportunities I can. That may mean sending them to a private school, or maybe I will not even be satisfied with that and decide to home-school them for a portion of their education (like their early education where I think pretty much all schools are lacking).
How do you average that out? Do you make private schools or home-schooling illegal? It's just not possible in a free country. If you take away people's freedoms, then maybe you can make all education equal, but it won't be very good.
Ah, yes, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the Federal government. My point was that local governments are better equipped at deciding what is best for their situation than some distant group of people in DC.
If Obama has inspired you to get involved in your community, then I applaud you.
My parents were poor. My dad came by himself first, and managed to get a factory job at Kodak. While he was here he missed my birth. He saved all the money he could so he could bring my mom and me. I was two years old when that finally happened.
You're contradicting yourself.
You say that if two people start off equal, and one ends up rich while the other ends up poor, you're okay with that. But just before that you said it's not fair that some people are rich and others are poor. The child of that rich man is going to start out rich, and the child of the poor man will start out poor. The rich man is going to want to give his child the greatest education he can afford to give. The poor man will not be able to provide the same, although he can make the child value learning; ultimately, what is possible in one's education is up to the individual. There is nothing the government can do to magically make everyone's education equal.
The fact is that there always have been, and always will be some people who are poor. Some of them will be able to climb out of it, some won't. Any time humans have tried to fix that they just end up making everyone poor.
It is difficult to rebut what you say because it is the exact opposite of what I've been hearing and reading, which makes me think it is simply untrue.
If you could show me an article, or something, that talks about large numbers of loans Fannie and Freddie would not buy, then you may be on to something. Right now, it just sounds made-up. I'm not saying that you made it up, or are lying, just that everything I have read contradicts you.
Okay, so let me see if I understand you...
My parents immigrated to this country when I was 2. My dad had only a high school education, and my mom a middle school education. My brother and I are the first generation of our family to totally grow up in the US and get college educations.
So, if we become financially successful, and can afford to give our children a better education, you want to deny us that "In the interest of trying to give people some sembelance of an equal playing field?"
That is just immoral.
We went to crappy city schools, and still learned well, because our parents instilled in us a sense of how important our education is. There is nothing the government can do to take the place of that.
Education will never be equal for everyone, and that is the major problem with the ideologues that wish it to be so. It is futile and can only degrade our education system on the whole, not "average things out."
Yes, this is the most important election of our lifetimes since the last most important election of our lifetimes.
Seriously, people say that for every presidential election. I wish we wouldn't make such a big deal out of the president and paid more attention to Congress.
They may have originated with those banks, but because Fannie and Freddie were buying up those mortgages and they had an implicit government guarantee. If Fannie and Freddie didn't exist, those private investment banks would not have had an irresponsible gov't entity to sell their questionable loans to, so they would have had to scrutinize their borrowers more.
It is not the government's job to plan things for us. It is hilariously bad at it, anyway. It is the government's job to protect our liberties so we can do things ourselves.
We are perfectly capable of organizing our own local educational systems. Some of them won't be as good as others, but they can learn from the ones that are successful.
Having the government plan it, and run it, will just guarantee that the quality continues to degrade universally.
So in other words, like 80+% of the other exploits on web, the exploit only works if you use Internet Explorer?
From TFA:
This feat was achieved by taking advantage of the way that Internet Explorer (and other browsers) handle active scripting in the Operating System. (emphasis added)