The point you missed in the blog was that Iraq has been the group that has been consistently, continually targetting the US.
In addition to those points, you have the added benefits of:
* Establishing freedom in the middle east. Be sure, this is a strategic, not a tactical, vision. If Iraq is a free, stable country in 5-10 years, then in 20-30 years we will likely have change following in the other countries
* "If the war was really about putting an end to a threat, than we have failed at that as well." - we haven't failed, we are simply still working on it.
* Moving the war to Iraq, instead of waiting for it to come to us
"The truth of the facts you laid out is that Iraq was no more than one threat out of many, and any direct threat to the US mainland was far smaller than other countries."
Actually, if you look at the details of my blog post, it points out that Iraqi intelligence has had involvement in almost every terrorist act on the US mainland. Several of them are not classified as Iraqis because they are using passports of foreign nationals who they killed when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But the usage of these passports presents pretty clear involvement w/ Iraqi Intelligence.
Re:Bush has brought meaningful change...
on
Election Day Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"we've invaded Iraq and killed 100,000 Iraqis..."
Actually, that figure does not say that Americans were the killers. That figure includes all "excess deaths" that occurred in Iraq. In fact, only half of those deaths were do to violence, and it does not say what party was the cause of the death.
"declare war on Iraq, etc - without pissing off most of the world in the process."
Of course, the rest of the world (except for Germany, IIRC) was being bribed by Saddam. Russia and France, especially. In fact, France was shown to be interfering w/ the inspection process by giving Iraq advance knowledge of where the inspectors were going.
I don't think anyone could have taken care of Iraq without making other countries mad. Maybe several years ago, but definitely not today.
Why do you think these guys are exclusively right-wing? You don't think that members of both parties from Vietnam hate John Kerry for painting them as baby-killing war criminals? Some of what SBVFT is true, a lot of it is lie or stretching the truth. But I think it stems from a hatred of John Kerry's characterization of them. I mean really, John Kerry's own "band of brothers" photo that he used early in his campaign is composed almost entirely of SBVFT members.
"Diebold"
What does this have to do with the right?
"and this"
You mean preventing people who might be double-voting from voting twice? The "get out the vote" rallies of ACORN and ACT have produced tens or hundreds of thousands of bad voter registrations.
"Time to think again for half a second - the commander in cheif can declassify information if required"
The _reason_ things are classified is that the public should not know for reasons of national security or to protect a source.
'"we have evidence but we can't show you" argument has been used to cover incompetance on more than just the Niger Uranium stupidity'
Actually, the Niger Uranium is likely true. Joe Wilson has been discreditted multiple times, and the forged documents were likely just used to hide the fact that the Uranium was shipped either through or to Libya.
"Even George Bush is only two degrees of separtion from Saddam or even Hitler"
That's because he doesn't think it's an issue worth dividing the country over. He doesn't have enough proof (at least declassified) to convince everyone, so he's not going to try to divide the country when he has a media who questions his every point.
I agree. However, I think winning this case could be bad for Microsoft. If MS wins, it will likely be because people shouldn't expect products to last beyond the warranty.
The other game companies could extend their warranties and use that to keep customers away from the XBOX (if its a 90-day warranty, they could say it costs $150 ever 90 days to play).
Not really. They US government says that they don't have a record of it. However, Atta travelled under a number of aliases, and there was plenty of time to do this.
It would be nice for you to point out evidence of my delusion. If I am wrong, great! I'll learn something new. But simply calling names isn't very helpful.
"A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday found Iraq among those liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and awarded nearly $104 million to the families of two men who died in the World Trade Center."
I've been quite annoyed at the moderators, who think that posting argument is the same as trolling. I think they should read the moderator guidelines before moderating. It appears that anyone who is pro-Kerry doesn't want to hear arguments from the other side.
"Think for a quarter of a second about what an extreme bunch of religeous fanatics would think about the one secular government on their turf."
They shared common enemies -- the US and Israel. In Louisiana, in one county, you had Baptist Churches coordinating with liquor stores in another county in order to keep booze out of their town. The Church just didn't want it, and the liquor stores wanted to maintain their control of the market. They worked together for a common purpose even though otherwise they probably would not have spoken to each other. It's the same kind of thing. Al-Qaeda was the best thing Saddam had to attack the US. He even made his country a little more religious in order to make it more attractive for Al-Qaeda.
"So now even your home grown loonies are spawn of Saddam - get real."
Why don't you read the data? This is eyewitness testimony.
"Wasn't Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand about then anyway?"
That was the 80's. As I pointed out in another thread, Bush is having to take the fallout from the previous four administrations. Reagan was the one who set up both Iraq and the terrorist entities in order to defeat communism. Now Bush has to deal w/ their outgrowths.
I'm very serious. Bush has done a wonderful job given the circumstances. He got to deal with all of the fallout for the previous four presidencies:
* Terrorism (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and to a lesser extent GHWB)
* Enron (Clinton, maybe others [have not searched it back further than him])
* Accounting scandals (probably back as far as Raegan, definitely on an increase w/ Clinton. Clinton led by example -- we had a "surplus" with an increasing debt -- great job!)
* Stock market bomb (this was due to circumstances which were in place under Clinton, but I actually don't think it's his fault -- it's our fault for being so greedy we got stupid)
* Social Security (this one hasn't hit yet, but it's coming -- Bush did a realistic estimate for how big the national debt is if we accounted for Social Security properly -- I don't remember the exact number but it was between 40 and 60 billion).
* Illegal immigration (haven't read up enough on the subject to know when it really started and what's been done about it)
Almost all of these, although they had been building for years, came to a head under Bush. Part of it was because he refused to abuse his power on behalf of large corporations. In fact, it was the former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Rubin who tried to convince the administration to help Enron out with their credit rating (helping out Enron was basically a normal policy under Clinton -- foreign aid to India was tied to India's contracts w/ Enron). The administration's refusal to abuse its power on Enron's behalf is what triggered its destruction.
Terrorism was essentially caused by Raegan, and to a lesser extent Carter. Raegan fought the Soviets by propping up Soviet enemies. Unfortunately, Raegan wasn't real picky on who these enemies were, so we wound up w/ Al-Qaeda. Clinton tried to ignore the problem by covering it up. He did not pursue the middle-east links to OKC even though almost all eyewitnesses pointed out that middle-eastern men were with McVeigh on the day of the bombing. Richard Clarke even mentions in his book that Terry Nichols likely learned bomb-making from Ramzi Youssef, the terrorist from WTC1. For the full scoop on the middle-eastern terrorists that McVeigh and Nichols were involved with, see the book The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis (she was actually sued for libel by the person she names as John Doe #2, and _she_ won). Clinton covered up TWA 800, which has been referred to as a terrorist attack by both George Stephanopolous and John Kerry. Clinton also ignored the middle east connections to the olympic park bombing, wrongfully pinning it on a US citizen (who was not convicted).
Given all of that, I'd say that Bush has done a great job at keeping us from a national disaster, and keeping the country together while the media tries to divide us.
Actually, Iraq is where all of the terrorists seem to flee. The only remaining terrorist from WTC1 fled to Iraq. Zarqawi fled from Afghanistan to Iraq. Abu Nidal fled from the Phillipines to Iraq.
In addition, Iraq has been coordinating with Al-Qaeda for over a decade now. The 9/11 victims even won a judgment against Iraq for the 9/11 atrocity (Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in the months leading up to 9/11).
Ramzi Youssef, part of Iraqi intelligence, and the technical mastermind behind WTC1, trained Terry Nichols (OKC) in bomb-making. Hussein Al-Hussany, a former member of Iraq's Republican Guard, was seen w/ McVeigh on the day of the OKC bombing, and his alibi was found to be a lie. Jayna Davis, an OKC reporter, even wrote a book naming him as John Doe #2. He sued her for libel, and she won.
If Bush goes into Iraq, steals their oil for US companies, oil prices drop -- Bush went into Iraq to benefit the oil companies.
If Bush goes into Iraq, leaves all of the oil in the hands of the Iraqis, oil prices go up -- Bush went into Iraq to benefit the oil companies.
If Bush did nothing and the oil price went up, clearly Bush did not want to go into the middle east because it would hurt the oil companies.
If Bush did nothing and the oil price fell, clearly Bush is helping the oil companies, which allow them to offer oil at lower prices.
Did I miss anything?
I'm sure you made the same squawk when Al Gore sold off the Naval oil reserves at Elk Hills to the company his Dad worked for?
Look, Bush clearly has connections to oil, and energy policy has been at the front of presidential agendas for decades. That does not lead directly to conclusions that Bush is trying to enrich himself. He might be, but any argument really needs more information than just his past business and the current price of oil.
Actually, Bush did not want to create the office for those very reasons, but he did so in order to keep it from being a divisive issue for the country.
Likewise, he did not want a 9/11 commission, because it would just wind up being crap that's filtered for the public. Which it was. But he went along with it so as to not divide the country.
Despite much evidence that Saddam moved his WMD out of the country during the lead-up to the war, the president has backed down from his WMD claims because he did not want to divide the country.
Despite much evidence that Saddam was involved w/ 9/11, Bush has never made the direct claim that Saddam was involved, because he did not want to divide the country.
Despite his ability to completely expose and trash the previous administration, Bush instead says gracious and kind words to and about Clinton, despite Clinton still acting as a Bush rival. He did this because he would rather unite the country than defeat a rival.
Bush has done his best to keep the country together, despite the media's and politicians (on both sides) attempt to rip it to shreds to maintain their viewing audience and political power.
"So, did Bush take a vow of poverty or something? They are both Yale-educated millionares."
Well, Bush doesn't do nearly as many tax loopholes as Kerry. Bush pays about 30% of his income in taxes, while Kerry pays about 12%. And Kerry makes a lot more than Bush.
In addition, Kerry seems to be supported by the big billionaires who will do anything for money, like, say, George Soros.
However, the Czech government says that Muhammad Atta met w/ Iraqi intelligence in the months preceding 9/11. I don't think they are making the same claims for Elvis.
"Iraq was a pain in the world's arse, but Since they got their arse kicked out of Kuwait and were being kept forcably quiet, they were reasonably innocuous."
I beg to differ. What is known for certain:
* Saddam was funding terrorist attacks against Israel
* Saddam was training international terrorists
* Saddam was giving sanctuary to numerous terrorists
* Saddam was working on his long-range weapons
* Saddam was purchasing additional long-range weapons from NK.
* Saddam had development laboratories for making new chemical weapons
What there is also evidence for:
* Saddam was integral in the attacks of WTC1, OKC, and 9-11
* Saddam was funding Al-Qaeda through oil-for-food
* Saddam had outsourced nuclear operations to Libya (who surrendered the program shortly after we took over)
* Saddam moved his chemical stockpiles to Syria, which were then used in an attempted terrorist attack on Jordan
"George W. Bush -- no, of course not, but we all know he's just a proxy for his father's mob anyway."
I disagree. What I like about W is the big difference between him and his dad. His dad was very Clinton-ish -- he would never have done the War on Terror, and would not have gone into Iraq w/o the UN. His administration even talked about a "New World Order". I like W because he was a rebel in his younger years and therefore didn't get taken by his Dad's stuff, and then changed his ways independently.
"In short, you can pray in my school, but my school can't make me pray."
But this means that the government officials can pray in school, too, if it were under congress's jurisdiction. Of course, actually, school is not really covered by the first amendment, because school is under the authority of the states, not congress.
In fact, earlier in our nations history, many of the _states_ were directly affiliated with denominations. The first amendment did not apply to what state governances did, only congress.
"Along with that, the education system cannot teach religious doctorine as fact, so teaching Genesis is out."
As I pointed out, this is a state issue, so you are wrong.
"On the subject of vouchers, they can be used to fund religious schools, which would violate the 1st ammendment due to funding a religous organization, If you somehow think that funding a group is not helping it become established, you are either dumb or lying."
Not quite. The law itself would be blind to what kind of institution it was going to. That would fulfill the requirements of the 1st amendment. Congress is not making a law about establishing a religion. They are making a law about helping people w/ schooling. How they choose to do that is their business.
"Anyway, why use vouchers? If we give more money to education (and throw out No CHild Left Behind) then we can make all the schools better, not just the ones that rich people go to."
Actually, (a) vouchers cost less than public schools, (b) the schools can't be all-the-way better if they cannot teach theology.
Personally, I'm homeschooling my kids. One will be homeschooled by necessity (he's a special needs kid, and the schools are not adequately prepared to push him to excel), and the other by choice.
When the public schools took over education in the late 1800's / early 1900's it was understood that the public schools would continue religious education.
FYI - in my town, the best school for special-needs kids is both private and tuition-free. And Christian.
True, but that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about today. A lot of it is cleaning up for our mistakes in the past. But you can't really blame Bush for the CIA-orchestrated coup.
Slashdot Mirror
The point you missed in the blog was that Iraq has been the group that has been consistently, continually targetting the US.
In addition to those points, you have the added benefits of:
* Establishing freedom in the middle east. Be sure, this is a strategic, not a tactical, vision. If Iraq is a free, stable country in 5-10 years, then in 20-30 years we will likely have change following in the other countries
* "If the war was really about putting an end to a threat, than we have failed at that as well." - we haven't failed, we are simply still working on it.
* Moving the war to Iraq, instead of waiting for it to come to us
"The truth of the facts you laid out is that Iraq was no more than one threat out of many, and any direct threat to the US mainland was far smaller than other countries."
Actually, if you look at the details of my blog post, it points out that Iraqi intelligence has had involvement in almost every terrorist act on the US mainland. Several of them are not classified as Iraqis because they are using passports of foreign nationals who they killed when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But the usage of these passports presents pretty clear involvement w/ Iraqi Intelligence.
"we've invaded Iraq and killed 100,000 Iraqis..."
Actually, that figure does not say that Americans were the killers. That figure includes all "excess deaths" that occurred in Iraq. In fact, only half of those deaths were do to violence, and it does not say what party was the cause of the death.
You should see what Iraqis think about this.
And, there were _many_ good reasons for invaded Iraq, a few of which I've listed elsewhere.
"declare war on Iraq, etc - without pissing off most of the world in the process."
Of course, the rest of the world (except for Germany, IIRC) was being bribed by Saddam. Russia and France, especially. In fact, France was shown to be interfering w/ the inspection process by giving Iraq advance knowledge of where the inspectors were going.
I don't think anyone could have taken care of Iraq without making other countries mad. Maybe several years ago, but definitely not today.
For those of you interested in why Iraq was a threat to the US, you should Read a blog post I wrote on the subject.
"SWVFT"
Why do you think these guys are exclusively right-wing? You don't think that members of both parties from Vietnam hate John Kerry for painting them as baby-killing war criminals? Some of what SBVFT is true, a lot of it is lie or stretching the truth. But I think it stems from a hatred of John Kerry's characterization of them. I mean really, John Kerry's own "band of brothers" photo that he used early in his campaign is composed almost entirely of SBVFT members.
"Diebold"
What does this have to do with the right?
"and this"
You mean preventing people who might be double-voting from voting twice? The "get out the vote" rallies of ACORN and ACT have produced tens or hundreds of thousands of bad voter registrations.
Of course, some counties in the last election turned out more than 100%.
"Time to think again for half a second - the commander in cheif can declassify information if required"
The _reason_ things are classified is that the public should not know for reasons of national security or to protect a source.
'"we have evidence but we can't show you" argument has been used to cover incompetance on more than just the Niger Uranium stupidity'
Actually, the Niger Uranium is likely true. Joe Wilson has been discreditted multiple times, and the forged documents were likely just used to hide the fact that the Uranium was shipped either through or to Libya.
"Even George Bush is only two degrees of separtion from Saddam or even Hitler"
That's because he doesn't think it's an issue worth dividing the country over. He doesn't have enough proof (at least declassified) to convince everyone, so he's not going to try to divide the country when he has a media who questions his every point.
Maybe it's just that instead of facts we just get ad-hominem attacks. I've presented numerous facts to support my arguments.
I agree. However, I think winning this case could be bad for Microsoft. If MS wins, it will likely be because people shouldn't expect products to last beyond the warranty.
The other game companies could extend their warranties and use that to keep customers away from the XBOX (if its a 90-day warranty, they could say it costs $150 ever 90 days to play).
Not really. They US government says that they don't have a record of it. However, Atta travelled under a number of aliases, and there was plenty of time to do this.
It would be nice for you to point out evidence of my delusion. If I am wrong, great! I'll learn something new. But simply calling names isn't very helpful.
"A federal judge in New York City on Wednesday found Iraq among those liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and awarded nearly $104 million to the families of two men who died in the World Trade Center."
USATODAY: Lawsuit ruling finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11
CBS NEWS: Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy
I've been quite annoyed at the moderators, who think that posting argument is the same as trolling. I think they should read the moderator guidelines before moderating. It appears that anyone who is pro-Kerry doesn't want to hear arguments from the other side.
"Think for a quarter of a second about what an extreme bunch of religeous fanatics would think about the one secular government on their turf."
They shared common enemies -- the US and Israel. In Louisiana, in one county, you had Baptist Churches coordinating with liquor stores in another county in order to keep booze out of their town. The Church just didn't want it, and the liquor stores wanted to maintain their control of the market. They worked together for a common purpose even though otherwise they probably would not have spoken to each other. It's the same kind of thing. Al-Qaeda was the best thing Saddam had to attack the US. He even made his country a little more religious in order to make it more attractive for Al-Qaeda.
"So now even your home grown loonies are spawn of Saddam - get real."
Why don't you read the data? This is eyewitness testimony.
"Wasn't Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand about then anyway?"
That was the 80's. As I pointed out in another thread, Bush is having to take the fallout from the previous four administrations. Reagan was the one who set up both Iraq and the terrorist entities in order to defeat communism. Now Bush has to deal w/ their outgrowths.
I'm very serious. Bush has done a wonderful job given the circumstances. He got to deal with all of the fallout for the previous four presidencies:
* Terrorism (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and to a lesser extent GHWB)
* Enron (Clinton, maybe others [have not searched it back further than him])
* Accounting scandals (probably back as far as Raegan, definitely on an increase w/ Clinton. Clinton led by example -- we had a "surplus" with an increasing debt -- great job!)
* Stock market bomb (this was due to circumstances which were in place under Clinton, but I actually don't think it's his fault -- it's our fault for being so greedy we got stupid)
* Social Security (this one hasn't hit yet, but it's coming -- Bush did a realistic estimate for how big the national debt is if we accounted for Social Security properly -- I don't remember the exact number but it was between 40 and 60 billion).
* Illegal immigration (haven't read up enough on the subject to know when it really started and what's been done about it)
Almost all of these, although they had been building for years, came to a head under Bush. Part of it was because he refused to abuse his power on behalf of large corporations. In fact, it was the former Clinton Secretary of the Treasury Rubin who tried to convince the administration to help Enron out with their credit rating (helping out Enron was basically a normal policy under Clinton -- foreign aid to India was tied to India's contracts w/ Enron). The administration's refusal to abuse its power on Enron's behalf is what triggered its destruction.
Terrorism was essentially caused by Raegan, and to a lesser extent Carter. Raegan fought the Soviets by propping up Soviet enemies. Unfortunately, Raegan wasn't real picky on who these enemies were, so we wound up w/ Al-Qaeda. Clinton tried to ignore the problem by covering it up. He did not pursue the middle-east links to OKC even though almost all eyewitnesses pointed out that middle-eastern men were with McVeigh on the day of the bombing. Richard Clarke even mentions in his book that Terry Nichols likely learned bomb-making from Ramzi Youssef, the terrorist from WTC1. For the full scoop on the middle-eastern terrorists that McVeigh and Nichols were involved with, see the book The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis (she was actually sued for libel by the person she names as John Doe #2, and _she_ won). Clinton covered up TWA 800, which has been referred to as a terrorist attack by both George Stephanopolous and John Kerry. Clinton also ignored the middle east connections to the olympic park bombing, wrongfully pinning it on a US citizen (who was not convicted).
Given all of that, I'd say that Bush has done a great job at keeping us from a national disaster, and keeping the country together while the media tries to divide us.
Actually, Iraq is where all of the terrorists seem to flee. The only remaining terrorist from WTC1 fled to Iraq. Zarqawi fled from Afghanistan to Iraq. Abu Nidal fled from the Phillipines to Iraq.
In addition, Iraq has been coordinating with Al-Qaeda for over a decade now. The 9/11 victims even won a judgment against Iraq for the 9/11 atrocity (Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in the months leading up to 9/11).
Ramzi Youssef, part of Iraqi intelligence, and the technical mastermind behind WTC1, trained Terry Nichols (OKC) in bomb-making. Hussein Al-Hussany, a former member of Iraq's Republican Guard, was seen w/ McVeigh on the day of the OKC bombing, and his alibi was found to be a lie. Jayna Davis, an OKC reporter, even wrote a book naming him as John Doe #2. He sued her for libel, and she won.
Okay, let's see here:
If Bush goes into Iraq, steals their oil for US companies, oil prices drop -- Bush went into Iraq to benefit the oil companies.
If Bush goes into Iraq, leaves all of the oil in the hands of the Iraqis, oil prices go up -- Bush went into Iraq to benefit the oil companies.
If Bush did nothing and the oil price went up, clearly Bush did not want to go into the middle east because it would hurt the oil companies.
If Bush did nothing and the oil price fell, clearly Bush is helping the oil companies, which allow them to offer oil at lower prices.
Did I miss anything?
I'm sure you made the same squawk when Al Gore sold off the Naval oil reserves at Elk Hills to the company his Dad worked for?
Look, Bush clearly has connections to oil, and energy policy has been at the front of presidential agendas for decades. That does not lead directly to conclusions that Bush is trying to enrich himself. He might be, but any argument really needs more information than just his past business and the current price of oil.
Actually, Bush did not want to create the office for those very reasons, but he did so in order to keep it from being a divisive issue for the country.
Likewise, he did not want a 9/11 commission, because it would just wind up being crap that's filtered for the public. Which it was. But he went along with it so as to not divide the country.
Despite much evidence that Saddam moved his WMD out of the country during the lead-up to the war, the president has backed down from his WMD claims because he did not want to divide the country.
Despite much evidence that Saddam was involved w/ 9/11, Bush has never made the direct claim that Saddam was involved, because he did not want to divide the country.
Despite his ability to completely expose and trash the previous administration, Bush instead says gracious and kind words to and about Clinton, despite Clinton still acting as a Bush rival. He did this because he would rather unite the country than defeat a rival.
Bush has done his best to keep the country together, despite the media's and politicians (on both sides) attempt to rip it to shreds to maintain their viewing audience and political power.
Customs was _moved_ to be under Homeland Security. It didn't change their job, just gave them new management.
"So, did Bush take a vow of poverty or something? They are both Yale-educated millionares."
Well, Bush doesn't do nearly as many tax loopholes as Kerry. Bush pays about 30% of his income in taxes, while Kerry pays about 12%. And Kerry makes a lot more than Bush.
In addition, Kerry seems to be supported by the big billionaires who will do anything for money, like, say, George Soros.
However, the Czech government says that Muhammad Atta met w/ Iraqi intelligence in the months preceding 9/11. I don't think they are making the same claims for Elvis.
"Iraq was a pain in the world's arse, but Since they got their arse kicked out of Kuwait and were being kept forcably quiet, they were reasonably innocuous."
I beg to differ. What is known for certain:
* Saddam was funding terrorist attacks against Israel
* Saddam was training international terrorists
* Saddam was giving sanctuary to numerous terrorists
* Saddam was working on his long-range weapons
* Saddam was purchasing additional long-range weapons from NK.
* Saddam had development laboratories for making new chemical weapons
What there is also evidence for:
* Saddam was integral in the attacks of WTC1, OKC, and 9-11
* Saddam was funding Al-Qaeda through oil-for-food
* Saddam had outsourced nuclear operations to Libya (who surrendered the program shortly after we took over)
* Saddam moved his chemical stockpiles to Syria, which were then used in an attempted terrorist attack on Jordan
"George W. Bush -- no, of course not, but we all know he's just a proxy for his father's mob anyway."
I disagree. What I like about W is the big difference between him and his dad. His dad was very Clinton-ish -- he would never have done the War on Terror, and would not have gone into Iraq w/o the UN. His administration even talked about a "New World Order". I like W because he was a rebel in his younger years and therefore didn't get taken by his Dad's stuff, and then changed his ways independently.
"In short, you can pray in my school, but my school can't make me pray."
But this means that the government officials can pray in school, too, if it were under congress's jurisdiction. Of course, actually, school is not really covered by the first amendment, because school is under the authority of the states, not congress.
In fact, earlier in our nations history, many of the _states_ were directly affiliated with denominations. The first amendment did not apply to what state governances did, only congress.
"Along with that, the education system cannot teach religious doctorine as fact, so teaching Genesis is out."
As I pointed out, this is a state issue, so you are wrong.
"On the subject of vouchers, they can be used to fund religious schools, which would violate the 1st ammendment due to funding a religous organization, If you somehow think that funding a group is not helping it become established, you are either dumb or lying."
Not quite. The law itself would be blind to what kind of institution it was going to. That would fulfill the requirements of the 1st amendment. Congress is not making a law about establishing a religion. They are making a law about helping people w/ schooling. How they choose to do that is their business.
"Anyway, why use vouchers? If we give more money to education (and throw out No CHild Left Behind) then we can make all the schools better, not just the ones that rich people go to."
Actually, (a) vouchers cost less than public schools, (b) the schools can't be all-the-way better if they cannot teach theology.
Personally, I'm homeschooling my kids. One will be homeschooled by necessity (he's a special needs kid, and the schools are not adequately prepared to push him to excel), and the other by choice.
When the public schools took over education in the late 1800's / early 1900's it was understood that the public schools would continue religious education.
FYI - in my town, the best school for special-needs kids is both private and tuition-free. And Christian.
True, but that's not really what we're talking about here. We're talking about today. A lot of it is cleaning up for our mistakes in the past. But you can't really blame Bush for the CIA-orchestrated coup.