All Posts by noname12345

Originally posted by Draenor

I don't know...it's hard to answer hypothetical questions like that.  It would be impossible for me to be able to judge what kind of threat exists in the world.  I don't consider Ron Paul an isolationist, I just think that he's deluded about why we were attacked. 

Okay, fair enough. Hypotheticals aren't fun.

At least read this man's resume, what Osama just said about him in his new released video, and then what he said on Larry King the other day.

Michael F. Scheuer is a 22-year CIA veteran. He served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. Scheuer resigned from the CIA in 2004. He is currently a News Analyst for CBS News, as well as a Terrorism Analyst for the Jamestown Foundation's online publication Global Terrorism Analysis.

Scheuer is now known to be the anonymous author of both Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.

Although Scheuer was an analyst at the CIA, not a covert field agent, not much is known about his personal history. During a recent C-SPAN interview, he mentioned that he is a graduate of Canisius College. He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire - U.S.-Canada-U.K. Relations from the University of Manitoba. Scheuer currently makes radio and television appearances, and teaches a graduate-level course on Al-Qaeda at Georgetown University. He also participates in conferences on terrorism and national security issues, such as the New America Foundation's December 2004 conference, "Al Qaeda 2.0: Transnational Terrorism After 9/11."

In the 9/11 Commission Report, Scheuer is featured in Chapter 4, where his name is given only as "Mike". He is portrayed as occasionally frustrated with his superiors' failure to aggressively target bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden stated in his September 7, 2007 message:
"If you want to understand what's going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer." 

Now go 9:00 into the Larry King show and listen to what Michael Scheuer says regarding Osama Bin Laden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WgqUb8X6AA
When they repeated the show later on, they actually cut out the part i'm directing you too.

Here is a quote from Michael Scheuer regarding the latest released Osama tape.
"And what bin Laden said today was exactly what he's been saying for 12 years, that this war is not about elections or liberties, democracy or women in the workplace. It's about the impact of our policies in the Islamic world. And because we won't talk about that here in America, we're not adequately defended." - Scheuer on Larry King.

So who are you gonna believe? The former leading CIA Osama expert or the politicians and political pundits?

In case you didn't watch the video here is the quote:
"You know, there was a comment the other day about Mr. Paul marching to Al Qaeda's drummer. Well, the truth of the matter is that it's all of the Democrats and the Republicans except, perhaps, Mr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich, who are marching to Osama bin Laden's drum."

http://spikedhumor.com/articles/124683/Japanese_Power_Suit.html

The Hybrid Assisted Limb suit with the ability to lift 10 times what you could normally. I want one.

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by METALDRAG0N

Originally posted by Draenor

Ron Paul still isn't going to win, get over it.

Ahh so its ok to lie to the public and to be incompetent. But not okay to have a differing political view.

It has nothing to do with that.  Actually, AlexAmore and I have very similar political views in that we are both essentially libertarians (though I am a registered republican, my view on government is that it should serve the people, not be a monolithic business that controls everything that we do)  Now, that said, I actually like a lot of things about Ron Paul, actually, his foreign policy is really the only thing that I strongly disagree with him on.  I might even end up voting for the guy...That doesn't mean that I think he stands a legitimate shot at winning though.

Well Ron Paul has been getting a lot of attention lately since the debate, especially because Huckabee got into it with Ron Paul and the war. A source from his campaign says they are getting many invitations from a lot of media. In fact Ron Paul will be on the O'reilly Factor this Monday, which should be interesting to say the least. Ron Paul has also been basically endorsed by Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough. He won the Fox Republican debate text vote with 33% (debate was viewed by 3.1 million), and you can't vote twice despite what Hannity and Colmes said to try and discredit RP. I could go on but my point is things are moving along.

You have to give Ron Paul credit. If guns were allowed onto planes for the pilots to carry then 9/11 wouldn't have happened (Box cutters vs guns...what do they say about bringing a knife to a gun fight?). No this isn't "hindsight is 20/20", because Ron Paul always held these fundamental 2nd amendment and limited government beliefs. So at least Ron Paul has a plan to stop any future terrorism from happening on commercial planes...let the airline business, with the most to lose, secure their plane safety.

So if 9/11 hadn't happened would you agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy?

skip school...oh wait.

Meh i'm out of ideas...

Originally posted by Draenor

Ron Paul still isn't going to win, get over it.

Is that you Sean Hannity?

therealrudy.org/ 

Watch him try and lie and point fingers. The interviewer reaches for some papers to prove Rudy is BSing....Rudy still tries to BS out of it. Then if that's not enough, we get interviews with the men who Rudy was pointing fingers at!  lol.

Originally posted by bhagamu

 Your next paragraphs equate teenagers' nonchalance with that of the ineptness of the public school system. You have yet to draw a relation. In fact, that particular paragraph affirms the OP's statement about how children themselves, not the public education system, need examination.

I don't know how many articles of the Constitution there are and neither do I care. Whether or not the supremacy clause and the ratification clause are in separate articles is irrelevant (though I'm pretty sure they are). What I do know is how the Constitution is structured, the powers attributed to each branch of government, and the extensive content and ideology behind it, its roots in the European Enlightenment, the events of the Constitutional Convention, its amendments and its changing interpretation across Supreme Courts in American History. I think that's more important than any silly trivia fact about the number of articles in the Constitution. For the record, I can't name all five Simpsons characters... or maybe I can: Marge, Homer, Bart, Maggie....and that girl, damn, so I can't.

You're pissed at the public school system because many Americans side differently than you do in the safety-freedom spectrum? I had plenty of friends in high school who believed in safety over freedom, and plenty more who believed the opposite. The public school system does not produce a homogeneous people. Republicans, as far as I'm aware, generally argue safety first, freedom second - this is pertaining to your witnessing this spectacle at the N.H. debate.

With regards to your last paragraph - teaching discipline is markedly independent of citizenry. Discipline is part of a good character ethic - if, as you said, kids didn't "shut up", teachers wouldn't be able to do their jobs teaching. Teachers are people, too. They want and love to do their jobs, or else they'd find different careers. Flaws in how society deals with badly behaved children is less of the fault of the public school system - its the fault of humanity not knowing how to handle bad behavior.

An argument comparing government indoctrination and disruptive class behavior is appalling.

With regards to your final statement, years and years of mandatory public schooling has advanced this country to a level much, much further than any country I know of without mandatory schooling and a public education system.

I guess you believe education is merely a one size fits all social institution?  There is no way that can be true. Kids come from all walks of life and learn in all different types of ways. Public education treat kids like they're clones. The beauty of of private schools is that they serve the student instead of the student serving the school (doing well on cookie cutter standardized tests so the school gets funding is stupid). Private schools come in all different shapes and sizes and so it's easy to find one that will be suitable. They cost money, but in a healthy economy it doesn't matter, jacking up taxes kills the economy and so you and I have to depend on subpar government monopolized programs just to get by. 

It doesn't matter how much money govt pumps into the public school system; if the competition isn't there then there is no incentive to teach well to every student. Once you become a paying customer for education only then does the school start treating you like a valued customer because you ARE a VALUED customer becuase you have VALUE. So if students start misbehaving or doing poorly then there WILL be a solution found or else they lose the customer.

Knowing how many articles of the Constitution there are just means you probably have studied it thoroughly...it's 7 by the way. Did you know the Constitution delegates no power to the Federal government to facilitate public education? That means they can't get involved. That's why I want to abolish the Dept of Education....at least that's one reason.

Kids are disruptive because one size does not fit all in education. Public school teachers are also involved in the worst union that hurts kids and serves the teachers. Teachers can be dumb as nails, but to fire him/her you have to jump through a million hoops.

Since private schooled children outperform public schooled children. Maybe the public schools are just taking the credit for advancing us?

Offtopic:
The Democrats aren't anymore anti-premptive war on countries that can't do us harm (therefore they are concerned with safety over freedom). The reason is they are involved in the Isreal lobby (AIPAC) too, among others and so you better believe it when I tell you that we will still be stuck in the middle east with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.

Originally posted by bhagamu

 

Originally posted by AlexAmore

How do you make the connection that once something joins a competitive network then poor people lose out? That's completely untrue. Obviously tax needs to be lowered drastically. If the Department of Education was abolished the taxpayer would save over 500 Billion dollars (04-05 numbers...probably more now). That would be enough savings that a parent could spend it on private school tuition in a competitive market, not to mention that private schools often have payment plans on top of that...especially in a competitive market.

The public eduction system churns out dumbed down, obedient little citizens. Why? Because THAT'S what the government wants.
I'll let George Carlin explain it for you....he's a liberal by the way. Let's face it, most people are in debt up to their heads, and dumb as **** when it comes to politics. Two things people should know the most about. You think the government wants to churn out citizens who will question authority and resist with civil disobedience or otherwise (The stuff America was founded on!)? You think they want more people calling their Congressman to demand change? You think our government wants to be pressured and challenged to serve our interests instead of theirs? They won't bite the hand that feeds them, and you're niave to think so.

I've been homeschooled, privately schooled and publically schooled. I learned FAR more about what's going on in the world as a homeschooler (I was more self schooled, however), and private schooler! It was in those times that I truely developed an independent mind regarding real world issues. I didn't even have to burden the taxpayer. There aren't many current affairs classes in public school, perhaps they should have them and let students have a discussion and/or debate about the issues that matter in the real world.

Let's see, what's an example of a competitive market where people don't have to pay for its goods? People who make zero, people who are bankrupt in this country can still send their kids to school, and that's a great thing. Their kids will grow with an education, and they'll be able to give back to their country.
 

Everything you've said after that reflects a distrustful and cynical look of the education system. You're quoting a comedian to defend your point. Are you under the impression that teachers go to brainwashing camp to learn to teach little kids how to be "obedient little citizens"? (a side note: conservatives call this "brainwashing camp" college. I don't give credibility to that viewpoint.)

Your accusation that "the public education system churns out dumbed down, obedient little citizens" is paranoid and baseless. Your summary of your education shows how remarkable you are, but it shows nothing about the public education system. It's a travesty that taxpayers view paying for public education as a burden.

You don't advocate fixing public education - you advocate its abolition.

YOU ARE PAYING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION!!!! IT'S CALLED TAXES!!!!! Oh wait you said that but seem to not be able to connect the dots.

So where is the morality with parents having to pay the taxes for public schools when they are homeschooling their children? That means the parents are spending more time, and money with their children, and yet they get punished.

How are graduates going to exactly "give back" to the country? Are you making a subtle concession that public education really isn't free? Hmm? Because they have to "give back", through taxes, the money that was used to pay for the education (except they give back forever until they die)? God knows money doesn't grow from trees and those teachers get paid somehow. Maybe magic? 

Ad hominem.
You're bashing the man because he is a comedian? And what do you do that makes you qualified?

Of course i'm distrustful and cynacle about the public education system, are you living under a rock? Have you seen the world outside? Teenagers only care about getting laid, American idol, clothes, video games, and sports. They don't know where Hell America is on a map, the religion of Iran, who their governor is, how many articles of the Constitution there are...ect.
Just look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4761294.stm

Our freedoms are getting trampled on and i'm pissed because Americans fear more about their safety than freedom. They don't understand that giving up your freedom for safety IS WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT! That's why they have the key word in their name "terror" which means "fear". It's so funny because at the sametime people say the terrorists hate us for our freedom, but they have memory of goldfish because they will then clap when presidential candidates say they will do anything to protect our safety. All this while they were in the "Live Free or Die" state....this is why i'm pissed off at the education system. I saw all of this first hand while at the NH Republican debate the other day. I was sitting in a floor seat about 8 rows back.

Yes the teachers teach the kids to be "obedient little citizens". Would you say they are teaching them to be disobedient little citizens? They certainly aren't teaching kids to have an independent free mind. Kids are taught to sit down, shut up, and OBEY OBEY OBEY. If someone doesn't shut up then EVERYBODY suffers and gets to lose lunch time and has to put their head down on their desk until the almighty teacher says otherwise. Government indoctrination at it's best.

Public education is a burden because it doesn't do any good. I advocate abolishing it.

Originally posted by bhagamu 
/emote does the bullcrap dance.

 

What, are you kidding? The fact that kids in this and other countries can get education for free is a great thing! It's not that there's no viable alternative - thousands of people scrap the public school system in favor of prep schools and private schools. The moment you make education providers join a competitive market, poor kids stop getting an education.

Public schools aren't homogeneous! Parents will move places to get to the "best" school they can possibly get. Yes, we have socialized education here in the U.S., but I don't buy for a second that public schools are government brainwashing machines. Public schools need attention, resources and strong community and parental involvement to succeed.

 

While I agree with most of Draenor's post, I don't know he's referring to regarding "multi-cultural celebratory nonsense". You said yourself that cultural diversity is great, and it raises awareness. What gives?

 

How do you make the connection that once something joins a competitive network then poor people lose out? That's completely untrue. Obviously tax needs to be lowered drastically. If the Department of Education was abolished the taxpayer would save over 500 Billion dollars (04-05 numbers...probably more now). That would be enough savings that a parent could spend it on private school tuition in a competitive market, not to mention that private schools often have payment plans on top of that...especially in a competitive market.

The public eduction system churns out dumbed down, obedient little citizens. Why? Because THAT'S what the government wants.
I'll let George Carlin explain it for you....he's a liberal by the way. Let's face it, most people are in debt up to their heads, and dumb as **** when it comes to politics. Two things people should know the most about. You think the government wants to churn out citizens who will question authority and resist with civil disobedience or otherwise (The stuff America was founded on!)? You think they want more people calling their Congressman to demand change? You think our government wants to be pressured and challenged to serve our interests instead of theirs? They won't bite the hand that feeds them, and you're niave to think so.

I've been homeschooled, privately schooled and publically schooled. I learned FAR more about what's going on in the world as a homeschooler (I was more self schooled, however), and private schooler! It was in those times that I truely developed an independent mind regarding real world issues. I didn't even have to burden the taxpayer. There aren't many current affairs classes in public school, perhaps they should have them and let students have a discussion and/or debate about the issues that matter in the real world.

Originally posted by Draenor

Our schools try to teach on such a broad range of subjects that it's no wonder that our school systems are failing so miserably in basic areas like reading and writing.  We try to teach sex ed to second graders for an entire semester when we should be teaching them to develop their reading comprehension (i'm biased towards English by the way, since it's my major and what I'm good at).  The problem with our education system is that it lacks focus.  It tries to be too politically correct with all of its multi cultural celebratory nonsense. 

Now, with all of that said...some people are dumb, we all know that.  You can't force people to be intelligent, nor can you force them to apply themselves in school, which is why the No Child Left Behind act is the bane of all teachers.  I do have an issue with the way we quantify the success of our schools though.  Standardized tests are...say it with me....useless and counter productive.  The end result with national standardized testing is that you have a bunch of cookie cutter teachers having their creativity stifled while little Johnny STILL doesn't care about The Great Gatsby. 

My solution:  get rid of standards, and start having objectives.  The objective of elementary school:  to prepare as many children as possible for high school by teaching them the fundamentals of math, science, english, and history.  The objective of high school:  to prepare as many young adults as possible for college by giving to them a broader message regarding all of those basic subjects, while furthering the process by narrowing their field of study according to what they are interested in so that they don't switch majors 5 times once they hit college. (yet another problem, it takes too damn long to get done with school in America)  When you have standards, you get too specific in what the teachers must teach, and they end up stifled as a result, which is why more than half of all first year inner city teachers quit after their first year.  How do we make sure the kids know what they need to know?  Develop a test that better examines the cultural and ethnic diversity in the classroom.  Meaning a test that recognizes that a kid in California isn't going to get the same education as a kid in New York.  Right now we're giving the same questions to kids in Oregon as we are kids in Arkansas, and that's just plain stupid.  Cultural variations play a HUGE part in what is important and relevent to a young student, and our current system fails to recognize that.

I agree with all that. I don't think our public school system can be perfect because of the basic fundamentals of how it works, but those are definately steps that would help improve it.

At the root of it I think the public school system needs competition. Monopolization can never equal excellence. Unfortunately I believe our education promotes socialism at least in college and that's where our teachers come from. Even in regular public schools, kids are walking into a socialistic institution every weekday...perhaps they start thinking that government must provide us with these services otherwise there is no other viable alternative for them. Little do they know if taxes were seriously reduced how the economy would explode, buying power would increase, people would keep far more of their money, private schools would be in demand, private schools would compete, public schools would then have to compete...ect.

Craig is now a victim of the criminal injustice system that he helped create. Karma is a bitch.

Wow you guys have no idea what I meant. Fred Thompson supports the war in Iraq and would go about the war much like Bush is now. That means he has no chance to win against a Democrat like Hillary Clinton. A great majority of Americans want out of Iraq. That's why a vote for Fred is a vote for Hillary.

It's so simple.

Fred Thompson isn't that conservative anyways. He can't even debate without a Hollywood script, that's probably why he's been avoiding entering....he's a pussy!

Fred Thompson official announcement video leaked:
www.micahnelson.com/

"I would do essentially what the president's doing [on Iraq]. I know it's not popular right now...."
- Fred Thompson

Yep. A vote for Fred Thompson is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Originally posted by bhagamu

 

 

Sometimes, I think the conservatives just want to chuck all the liberals out of America.

Just the bleeding heart socialist-commie liberals.

It just proves even Christians can't stand each other.

I blame Canada.

I don't want to get rick rolled....

Originally posted by sadeis

Is it better to have hope and belief???  Or just believe that science will be the answer to it all??

This clearly has one correct answer.