I totally disagree. Capitalism will dictate the markets. There will ALWAYS be a market for education, if Capitalism is allowed to flourish. There were people who were educated who were poor in before it was paid for by the government, Nomad. Also, the Middle Class are the majority of private school students. Hell, not to mention, home schooling is a very viable option.

People have to take responsibility for their actions. Having children is included in that.

It's not the children's fault that they were had. There would have to be some type of subsidization. I like public education but I'd like for it to be state supported with no federal control. The 50 education systems will be tied together by the College Board SATs or ACTs.

(05-11-2009 10:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It's not the children's fault that they were had. There would have to be some type of subsidization. I like public education but I'd like for it to be state supported with no federal control. The 50 education systems will be tied together by the College Board SATs or ACTs.

Actually, I'm not against that.

(05-11-2009 05:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  > Religion is DANGEROUS: "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978. Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harvey_milk/)

Without speculating as to whether that particular quote is genuine, citing that website as authoritative is ridiculous. There are more fraudulent quotes on that site than any other website of its prominence than I can think of.

(05-11-2009 05:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 04:21 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Back to my question...you still haven't told me about the civil rights that Milk stood up for.

Again, if you're going to ask a ridiculously disingenuous question, then don't expect a real answer. If you're going to try to argue semantics in a desperate ploy to try to defend how an entire class of people, not at all dissimilar to blacks, was once again ostracized, attacked, and excluded despite the laws and concepts of freedom in this country, then there's no use arguing with your bigoted viewpoints.

Artifice - you should really reevaluate your entire dialog with Graybeard. I do not recall any viewpoint that he has expressed. In my experience, I cannot recall him being disingenuous at any time. IMHO, he is asking a sincere question with the purpose of evaluating whether or not Milk was generally trying to advance what can objectively be viewed as "civil rights" or was merely trying to broker greater political influence and privilege (i.e. publicly funded civic centers, which I believe was one of his key projects). The Britannica website you posted is vacuous and merely contains the assertion that he was a civil rights activist.

By way of analogy, working to abolish deed restrictions that prohibit african americans from living in certain housing developments would qualify one as a civil rights leader. Working to provide loans to those that cannot afford them and wrecking the global economy in the process would not.

Going to specifics, I would assert that at least one of these should be viewed as a civil right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk Wrote:He also ran on a socially liberal platform, opposing government interference in private sexual matters and favoring the legalization of marijuana.

While, this would not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk Wrote:He often repeated his philosophy that gays should buy from gay businesses

** I believe you're on record with your disdain of wikipedia... you're free to post relevant information from Britannica.

(05-11-2009 10:44 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 10:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  There would have to be some type of subsidization. I like public education but I'd like for it to be state supported with no federal control.

Actually, I'm not against that.

(05-11-2009 10:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Schools shouldn't be funded by government to begin with.

(05-12-2009 11:19 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 05:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  > Religion is DANGEROUS: "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978. Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harvey_milk/)

Without speculating as to whether that particular quote is genuine, citing that website as authoritative is ridiculous. There are more fraudulent quotes on that site than any other website of its prominence than I can think of.

I didn't write that....I don't know where it came from but it wasn't from me.

(05-12-2009 11:19 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 05:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  > Religion is DANGEROUS: "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978. Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harvey_milk/)

Without speculating as to whether that particular quote is genuine, citing that website as authoritative is ridiculous. There are more fraudulent quotes on that site than any other website of its prominence than I can think of.

(05-11-2009 05:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 04:21 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Back to my question...you still haven't told me about the civil rights that Milk stood up for.

Again, if you're going to ask a ridiculously disingenuous question, then don't expect a real answer. If you're going to try to argue semantics in a desperate ploy to try to defend how an entire class of people, not at all dissimilar to blacks, was once again ostracized, attacked, and excluded despite the laws and concepts of freedom in this country, then there's no use arguing with your bigoted viewpoints.

Artifice - you should really reevaluate your entire dialog with Graybeard. I do not recall any viewpoint that he has expressed. In my experience, I cannot recall him being disingenuous at any time. IMHO, he is asking a sincere question with the purpose of evaluating whether or not Milk was generally trying to advance what can objectively be viewed as "civil rights" or was merely trying to broker greater political influence and privilege (i.e. publicly funded civic centers, which I believe was one of his key projects). The Britannica website you posted is vacuous and merely contains the assertion that he was a civil rights activist.

By way of analogy, working to abolish deed restrictions that prohibit african americans from living in certain housing developments would qualify one as a civil rights leader. Working to provide loans to those that cannot afford them and wrecking the global economy in the process would not.

Going to specifics, I would assert that at least one of these should be viewed as a civil right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk Wrote:He also ran on a socially liberal platform, opposing government interference in private sexual matters and favoring the legalization of marijuana.

While, this would not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk Wrote:He often repeated his philosophy that gays should buy from gay businesses

** I believe you're on record with your disdain of wikipedia... you're free to post relevant information from Britannica.

I could not disagree with you more here. I'm not going to get into a semantics battle over the term "civil rights", so that he can henpeck particular actions and inject a very ideologue opinion on why those damn queers dont have rights. That's never been my point.

Whether he fought to get laws changed on the books, or fought to get them enforced, or just fought against the open repression of minorities, including fellow homosexuals, he was a civil activist.

And BTW, I was particularly amused by you "downgrading" my reputation because I engaged in "namecalling". That is a hoot given the number of attacks, both personal and ideological anyone that isn't a lockstep right wing ideologue has to endure if they post here. Here's the approximate value of the ratings system here:

Quote:Positive (+2): Can't stand Obama.Thats worth at least a 10.

.....sums it up perfectly.

The collective regulars on this board have absolutely zero desire to discuss or debate opposing opinions. There's no intellectual integrity or civility here. It's a bash Libruhls club.

You can rate me a negative 200, call me overcritical, coward, whatever. Won't stop me from pointing out the bigoted, right wing partisan zealot hipocrisy and buffoonery that goes on here. It's funny/sad watching them show their true colors. This is quite possibly the most intolerant political messageboard I've seen on a non-political website.

(05-12-2009 11:45 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 11:19 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 05:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  > Religion is DANGEROUS: "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978. Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harvey_milk/)

Without speculating as to whether that particular quote is genuine, citing that website as authoritative is ridiculous. There are more fraudulent quotes on that site than any other website of its prominence than I can think of.

(05-11-2009 05:17 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 04:21 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Back to my question...you still haven't told me about the civil rights that Milk stood up for.

Again, if you're going to ask a ridiculously disingenuous question, then don't expect a real answer. If you're going to try to argue semantics in a desperate ploy to try to defend how an entire class of people, not at all dissimilar to blacks, was once again ostracized, attacked, and excluded despite the laws and concepts of freedom in this country, then there's no use arguing with your bigoted viewpoints.

Artifice - you should really reevaluate your entire dialog with Graybeard. I do not recall any viewpoint that he has expressed. In my experience, I cannot recall him being disingenuous at any time. IMHO, he is asking a sincere question with the purpose of evaluating whether or not Milk was generally trying to advance what can objectively be viewed as "civil rights" or was merely trying to broker greater political influence and privilege (i.e. publicly funded civic centers, which I believe was one of his key projects). The Britannica website you posted is vacuous and merely contains the assertion that he was a civil rights activist.

By way of analogy, working to abolish deed restrictions that prohibit african americans from living in certain housing developments would qualify one as a civil rights leader. Working to provide loans to those that cannot afford them and wrecking the global economy in the process would not.

Going to specifics, I would assert that at least one of these should be viewed as a civil right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk Wrote:He also ran on a socially liberal platform, opposing government interference in private sexual matters and favoring the legalization of marijuana.

While, this would not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_milk Wrote:He often repeated his philosophy that gays should buy from gay businesses

** I believe you're on record with your disdain of wikipedia... you're free to post relevant information from Britannica.

I could not disagree with you more here. I'm not going to get into a semantics battle over the term "civil rights", so that he can henpeck particular actions and inject a very ideologue opinion on why those damn queers dont have rights. That's never been my point.

Whether he fought to get laws changed on the books, or fought to get them enforced, or just fought against the open repression of minorities, including fellow homosexuals, he was a civil activist.

And BTW, I was particularly amused by you "downgrading" my reputation because I engaged in "namecalling". That is a hoot given the number of attacks, both personal and ideological anyone that isn't a lockstep right wing ideologue has to endure if they post here. Here's the approximate value of the ratings system here:

Quote:Positive (+2): Can't stand Obama.Thats worth at least a 10.

.....sums it up perfectly.

The collective regulars on this board have absolutely zero desire to discuss or debate opposing opinions. There's no intellectual integrity or civility here. It's a bash Libruhls club.

You can rate me a negative 200, call me overcritical, coward, whatever. Won't stop me from pointing out the bigoted, right wing partisan zealot hipocrisy and buffoonery that goes on here. It's funny/sad watching them show their true colors. This is quite possibly the most intolerant political messageboard I've seen on a non-political website.

After all those words, you still don't explain your thoughts and comments. Instead you just attack the other's that post here. If you don't like it, you can leave. Nobody here would miss your minor contributions of talking points with no substance. Face it, I asked you for clarification of the point that YOU made, and you couldn't produce any.

(05-12-2009 11:50 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  After all those words, you still don't explain your thoughts and comments.

On the contrary, I did. You just chose not to accept them because it doesn't fit your agenda or your transparent debate tactic.

YOU should CAPITALIZE more too. Just don't spit on the monitor though. Even when you're frothing mad, that's gross.

Toodles!

(05-12-2009 11:55 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 11:50 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  After all those words, you still don't explain your thoughts and comments.

On the contrary, I did. You just chose not to accept them because it doesn't fit your agenda or your transparent debate tactic.

YOU should CAPITALIZE more too. Just don't spit on the monitor though. Even when you're frothing mad, that's gross.

Toodles!

Good mature response as usual. If you can't win, act like a child and kick scream and call names.

(05-12-2009 11:56 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 11:55 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 11:50 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  After all those words, you still don't explain your thoughts and comments.

On the contrary, I did. You just chose not to accept them because it doesn't fit your agenda or your transparent debate tactic.

YOU should CAPITALIZE more too. Just don't spit on the monitor though. Even when you're frothing mad, that's gross.

Toodles!

Good mature response as usual. If you can't win, act like a child and kick scream and call names.

LOL. I called you names in that reply? Please... highlight it.

Once again, you made things up to try to win a point.

(05-12-2009 11:25 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 10:44 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 10:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  There would have to be some type of subsidization. I like public education but I'd like for it to be state supported with no federal control.

Actually, I'm not against that.

(05-11-2009 10:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Schools shouldn't be funded by government to begin with.

My main argument is with the federal government. If I sometimes omit "federal" when I'm referring to government, blame it on the current political climate in which the fed is the all-powerful oligarchy and we're all the sheep being herded to the slaughter. I've never been against local communities or municipalities controlling and/or funding local schools. Smaller is easier to control.

(05-12-2009 11:40 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-12-2009 11:19 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2009 05:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  > Religion is DANGEROUS: "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk, speaking at a homosexual rally in 1978. Source: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/harvey_milk/)

Without speculating as to whether that particular quote is genuine, citing that website as authoritative is ridiculous. There are more fraudulent quotes on that site than any other website of its prominence than I can think of.

I didn't write that....I don't know where it came from but it wasn't from me.

I knew that and should've qualified what I said. But, I thought you might know where it came from. thinkexist is the subject of one of my longstanding grudges as purveyors of idiotic ideas or terrible scholarship, along with $cientologists, The "History" Channel, Oprah Winfrey, etc.

(05-12-2009 11:45 AM)Artifice Wrote:  And BTW, I was particularly amused by you "downgrading" my reputation because I engaged in "namecalling". That is a hoot given the number of attacks, both personal and ideological anyone that isn't a lockstep right wing ideologue has to endure if they post here. Here's the approximate value of the ratings system here:

Quote:Positive (+2): Can't stand Obama.Thats worth at least a 10.

.....sums it up perfectly.

The collective regulars on this board have absolutely zero desire to discuss or debate opposing opinions. There's no intellectual integrity or civility here. It's a bash Libruhls club.

You can rate me a negative 200, call me overcritical, coward, whatever. Won't stop me from pointing out the bigoted, right wing partisan zealot hipocrisy and buffoonery that goes on here. It's funny/sad watching them show their true colors. This is quite possibly the most intolerant political messageboard I've seen on a non-political website.

I only did that because you were (1) interesting enough to spend the effort to do that, (2) obviously should know better, and (3) seem to have so obviously misinterpreted GB. IMHO, GB is one of the most level headed and non-dogmatic posters that you will come across, and I don't usually agree with his viewpoints, but obviously respect him. Your post in the other thread about wanting to see more civil discussion in the context of this dialog is just absurd.

(05-12-2009 12:32 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Your post in the other thread about wanting to see more civil discussion in the context of this dialog is just absurd.

Is it really? I know you can enumerate every post that you've ever seen me make that you consider sophomoric, but how about every post that either attacked me personally, professionally, or attempted to label me and mock me while putting words and beliefs in my mouth, in the tradition of "if you're with us you're against us"? Or the fact that the last post I made had 4 replies mocking me before I could even edit the original post (i.e. under 5 minutes)?

You may have a point that I poke and prod too much, but I think that it goes both ways. Which is pretty much my point of the lack of civility. Believe it or not, I am just reciprocating.

The telling thing is that I'm almost none of the things that I am constantly labeled. Especially when it comes to my personal/political beliefs.

(05-12-2009 01:39 PM)Artifice Wrote:  You may have a point that I poke and prod too much, but I think that it goes both ways. Which is pretty much my point of the lack of civility. Believe it or not, I am just reciprocating.

The telling thing is that I'm almost none of the things that I am constantly labeled. Especially when it comes to my personal/political beliefs.

First, I fully realize you're reciprocating. But, that is not contributing to civil dialog - in fact it pretty much guarantees that the first post to engage in it is going to tip the thread into the gutter.

I also understand that you're in what is probably the majority of posters on this board that are consistently mislabeled. But, so what? You get to state or clarify your beliefs how and when you choose.