What about this Ron Paul fellow??????

National Defense is a federal responsibility and we should have a military that is well trained and equipped. However the need to have troops deployed throughout the world has come to an end. A strong military can still be accomplished at a fraction of what we currently spend.
The United States should declare war if we are going to invade another country. We had to go to Afghanistan because they were directly tied to attacking this country. There were a lot of people that felt we should go to Iraq. I questioned the timing, but also felt after 10+ years of United Nation sanctions and violations that Iraq would never change. Darfur and Iraq are similar situations in the respect that we are not the world policeman, judge, or moral compass. The joke aka United Nations should be handling these situations. Clearly the United Nations failed, but why is it the United states of America's responsibility. Let us take care of our own citizens and perfect democracy here before we try to fix the world. Again these are positions that the government should take and not necessarily individual citizens.

My humble opionion is that we spend too much on the transportation system. The presumption that maintenance of the system is justified by defense is absolutely ludicrous. We can rapidly move equipment throughout the world without the benefit of said interstate system.

I believe that the federal government should be removed from the Educational process totally. It is the individual state's responsibility to determine educational system and financing. The ultimate responsibility for a well rounded education lies on the parents shoulders. One of the greatest trends related to education is the increase in home schooling, but the resources given to that sect of education is appalling. The educational system should never be a socio-economic experiment, which it currently is. I also will defer to Mr. Iaccoca at this point. Based on our current results against the world and funding levels show me where it is working?

 

I was speaking of the threat of war which was ignored for the most part.

Not really. How does dispatching warships to where war has been declared against the US not changing his view? He did not believe the Constitution was to be followed? He did not believe Congressional authorization was necessary PRIOR to making an offensive move? There is an inconsistency there that is very evident and is far from un confusing.

So the Constitution being only a "suggestion" in the real world was the view or maybe that the declaration of war only worked in certain circumstances, such as where nations were involved? In either case it proves the application of the real world quickly changes the view on warfare.

Not really, as the caveat is clearly subjective. The use of force can more easily be avoided if the instruments of that force are not sent into harms way or not instructed to avoid the use of force at all costs.

Note also we have no borders in the area in which to patrol. There would then have to be some agreement or treaty involved to entangle us in that area.

We are not self sufficient now, nor will we be in the foreseeable future. The effects of destabilization of the world markets come into play with every conflict and potential conflict and that affects us directly in the form of commerce. There was not a declaration of war regardless of the approval of the Congress, which has also been the case in other conflicts since, and that was under the watch of the man you claim should be our guide to how the government should operate. The fact that his stated ideals changed so quickly in the light of reality should be a clear indication of the need for flexibility in the government operations.

If the Taliban was not the government and al Qaeda was, why were they in the Sudan to be kicked out instead of already being in Afghanistan?

There is a connection between the two, including the incorporation of al Qaeda into the Afghanistan Department of Defense, but the two were separate entities and the Taliban was the government at the time.

From your wiki-link:

After Sudan made it clear that bin Laden and his group were no longer welcome that year, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan — with previously established connections between the groups, a similar outlook on world affairs and largely isolated from American political influence and military power — provided a perfect location for al-Qaeda to establish its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

 

The establishment of the interstate road system was at the time related to defense but the commerce aspect is more critical now that a basic network is in place.

The equality aspect brought about by the extension of Civil Rights to the state level requires a centralized yardstick for the measurement and to ensure that equality is maintained within agreeable ranges. Not just with education but many other aspects of our society.

That is partially due to the opposition to education not including religion or promoting the religious beliefs of any one group. The private schooling was also very popular during the desegregation period for similar reasons of opposition.

We have a much higher literacy rate than when the states alone controlled education and those other countries which you indicate are better also have a national educational system, do they not? I believe that shows the system does work but can be improved.

 

OK Wayne, you are right and Jefferson and the other founders were wrong. They clearly did not understand what they were doing. The system they set up was not ready for prime time. I now think we should continue to fight wars all over the world without declaring war because it works very well and never has caused a problem before going back clearly to 1801 as you state.

again you are right. Osama Bin Laden was not a freedom fighter in Afghanistan when the Russians were there and the US was supporting the "freedom fighters". Obviously he is not smart enough to enable the Taliban to take control of the government in Afghanistan and run it as a puppet so if he ever had to use that area for a last stand he could. Have you ever thought that Al-Qaeda's main goal was to punish the Occupiers and Wrong Ideology spreaders rather than running a country?

 

I agree that it no longer needs to be maintained for defense purposes and I believe I already stated that.

Again no federal intervention in Education. It should not be a socio-economic experience. Here is your yard stick. The freedom for legal residents to move in and out of states based on the educational process etc.

You mean the public schools teaching my children stuff that is wrong and immoral. I can understand the need for parents to teach little Susie or Johnny about the real world instead of the "public school" take.

And how is the literacy rate compared to a time when parents used the bible to teach reading? I have no clue what other countries use for educational systems, not do I care. Our government was not set up to be a strong federal system. Guess my public education has failed me again I humbly thought that is why it is called The United States of America.

 

I am glad somebody else is finding it enlightening and thought provoking. Hopefully it will be a springboard for more people to engage and think and not just accept the two party and media spin as "the way"

I personally think the government should start at home. We have no business trying to solve problems at home when we can not even control our streets.

The failure in public education started way before the current administration. How can you reasonably finish the "textbook" if you have children that did not comprehend last years "textbook"?

 

Almost right, the founding fathers did know what they were doing when they made the Constitution flexible to changes which would be brought about by changing situations. The part that is wrong is trying to go back to the original thoughts and try to remove all of the later situational changes.

Conflicts, maybe but major wars such as WWII, which was one of the last declared wars in the international community.

I never said he was not a fighter in Afghanistan, I did say al Qaeda was NOT the government of the country. The Taliban was only recognized by a few nations and al Qaeda by none of which I am aware. There was no clear recognized government in control as far as the majority of the international community was concerned.

He did retain a connection, but he was part of the leadership of al Qaeda not the Afghanistan government.

That would tend to disprove the contention they were the government in and of itself. They had no interest in the governing nor were they in a position to govern.

 

But you indicated it should no longer be maintained, which is the difference.

Given the majority of the population disagrees with this view I doubt if there will ever be significant support for this limited view. The investment in education is significantly returned to society and that has been proved throughout history.

No, the things you believe are wrong such as the science of evolution. The public schools are also supposed to be isolated from the support of any single of group of religions just as every other governmental body.

There is probably many views of where this "real world" view is flawed, but they do have the option for alternative education as long as they meet certain requirements.

Significantly higher.

Really, it was not set up to make such changes? How did that happen?

I suppose it did if you got that from just the title of the country and not from the history or civics classes.

 

I would suggest anyone considering a change or proposed change in the educational system study the current and past systems considerably before attempting to support anything. Change to be changing is usually not productive and one should know what is working, what has worked, and what has not before making any important decisions.

http://www.answers.com/topic/literacy
literacy

Ability to read and write. The term may also refer to familiarity with literature and to a basic level of education obtained through the written word. In ancient civilizations such as those of the Sumerians and Babylonians, literacy was the province of an elite group of scholars and priests. Though more prevalent in classical Greece and Rome, it was often limited to members of the upper classes. The spread of literacy in Europe in the Middle Ages was evidenced by the use of writing for functions once conducted orally, such as the indenture of servants and the notation of evidence at trials. The rise of literacy in Europe was closely tied to great social transformations, notably the Protestant Reformation, which brought individual study of the Bible, and the development of modern science. The spread of literacy during the Reformation and the Renaissance was greatly facilitated by the development of printing from movable type and by the adoption of vernacular languages in place of Latin. Compulsory schooling, established in Britain, Europe, and the U.S. in the 19th century, has led to high rates of literacy in the modern industrialized world.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

The history of literacy goes back several thousand years, but before the industrial revolution finally made cheap paper and cheap books available to all classes in industrialized countries in the mid-nineteenth century, only a small percentage of the population in these countries were literate. Up until that point, materials associated with literacy were prohibitively expensive for people other than wealthy individuals and institutions. For example, in England in 1841, 33% of men and 44% of women signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write. Only in 1870 was government-financed public education made available in England.

 

Obviously our opinion differs as I value the Constitution as written.

Obviously our opinion differs as I believe the last decisive victory was WWII.

Again last comments about it because Obviously our opinion differs as I believe that Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are guilty with no regard to the international community.

Last comments I will make in reference to declaring war and the dynamic between Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan.

 

Wrong.....This is my statement. Never said it should not be maintained only that justifying it for defense measures is wrong.

your opinion, have any facts?

so from your high and mighty position you can tell what is right and wrong. Again, have any facts?

Again you are the decider in determining education. Again, have any facts?

I heard differently, but neither one of us has proven it. Personally I am dropping it.

 

Way to long to read and decipher the propaganda form the left and reality. Maybe our country should look at buying the $100 laptop......

 

While I value the evolution the founders incorporated because they knew it would not work forever unchanged.

No, there have been a few since then but no similarly declared wars.

I never said they were not guilty, just that they were NOT the government in Afghanistan. They were guilty and we were justified under international laws to act accordingly to retrieve them. We were not so justified in the case of Iraq.

Good, since we seem to be in agreement with everything other than the declaration of war and the associated legal problems.

 

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post. I agree the commerce aspect is more important now, IMO. The existence of the system does have a significant impact on the movement of defense materials though. There is a definite defense benefit but the effect on commerce is sufficient justification and more realistic given the limited deployment of troops.

Yes, some of which were in a following post.

On the issue of evolution, yes there are numerous facts that support the teaching of the science. There is only a religious text and the belief therein to support the teaching of creationism, which still may be correct but no in the form presented. For example, God may have used evolution as the tool of creation of human life which would be true under both issues, but since this is an unknown is not something which can be taught in a science class.

No, I am not the decider in determining education, nor did I present myself as such. We can present facts if you want to specify which of the "real world" views you wish to discuss. The fact of a disagreement in view is plainly self evident as there is a division from the established system. If there was no disagreement the established system would not be different, would it?

Ok, but I did provide references in a later post, which you may not have seen when you made this post.

 

Where is a link for the above statement? I thought abstinence education in North Carolina came about because of North Carolina General Statue 115C-81, passed in 1995, way before GWB became POTUS.

 

The cost we spend on transportation in this country is still way too much no matter if you are looking at it for defense or commerce. How many interstates does NC need? How do we think we can change nature?

So evolution is golden and nothing the parent believes is correct. Wonder what the Amish teach children about technology?

Have no clue what we are covering in this segment.

 

From the level of traffic I see on them when I travel, more than we have now.

Not sure how this is supposed to relate to the interstate system though.

As far as science is concerned, yes, that is the case. In a religion class there would be a wider view though.

I don't know but I see they do make use of it at times.

:lol: :lol: We are again in agreement on something ... :lol: :lol:

 

I'm good to go, myself, but I cannot speak for Pirate.

 

No, I try to engage my brain and examine all points, but I do not have time to read long winded articles from journalists when they are right or left leaning. I lost interest when you put about 10 points in one paragraph and then cut and pasted a wikipedia article. I went back and could not get past

Do you really think they started passing children when they could not do the work under this president. Heck they probably did it under Carter's

 

Again I reiterate that I believe we spend too much on transportation. I am not limiting it to the interstate system. There are better ways to handle it than gaging by the numbers on a stretch of pavement.

Depends on what scientist you ask and what opinion you will get. The point is any time the federal government decides what is best for the 50 states that you limit the very liberty and freedom this country was established for.