Question of the Day 7/28/07

[f3lix]

Currently, illegal immigrants are entering our country and many of them are sending their children to public schools. By law, public schools cannot ask for children to prove they are American Citizens for any reason that is school related, which results in the children receiving an education without their parents paying taxes for it. Do you believe it is more important for our society to educate all children or should the law be changed so that illegal immigrants cannot benefit in our system without paying?

[leggers]

I like tuna fish sandwiches

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

First of all, illegal immigrants shouldn't be here in the first place.

But, since they already are living here i think they should get an education, we already have enough dumb fuckers on the streets.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Why not spend the money in kicking them the fuck out?

[DJ FC]

"Yes" and "No" would have been better than your lame-ass reasons for "yes" and "no." It's entirely possible that people may have their own views on the issue.

At first I voted "No," because if it is discovered that a child is illegal, the family should go through the process of being here legally or be deported. In my oppinion, the process toward legitimization of imigrants should be made easier rather than simply shipping these people back to Mexico. Their cheap labor and cultural influence will help sustain America as a competitive nation.

But I realized that it's probably the best just not to ask, because if we ask... they wont even try to get an education.

So, I'm going to say "yes," for a few reasons other than "education should be our top priority," because clearly things like breathing and eating are more important than education.

If you must prove that you are a citizen to enrole in public schools, families will simply stop sending their children. They won't stop comming here, they will just hide their kids when they do. And these kids will be a significant burden on the communities in which they reside. A generation of uneducated, illegal immigrants is hardly what the nation needs. We are doing the nation as a whole a big favor in educating these people, and every effort should be made to give them tools to become full citizens so that they may, as adults, repay the system which gave them their start. Education is one of the few institutions which must be supported by the government, because without it all society crumbles. With state-sponsored education, those who would otherwise shlump off (illegal imigrants) are given the oportunity to be truely productive.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

Education is one of the few institutions which must be supported by the government, because without it all society crumbles. With state-sponsored education, those who would otherwise shlump off (illegal imigrants) are given the oportunity to be truely productive.

I COMPLETELY disagree with this statement. State-funded schooling leaders to ignorantn and irresponsible teachers that cannot be fired. State and federal funding for schools is unrealistic because a federal gov't more than a state gov't cannot address the community issues that a local gov't can. Gov't sponsored bills like the "No Child Left Behind Act" are downright stupid. Their intention is good, but these issues are not federal issues, but community issues. Making a teachers equally responsible for students at the same grade level is wrong, because all students mature at different levels. Punishing schools for not scoring well on some state-mandated test only forces schools to teach the test instead of providing a well-rounded education. These state-funded tests do not assess creativity, which is the building block of the future, as long as it is supported by education. As you can tell, the biggets issue I have with state and federally mandated education is that it tries to create boundries in a ecosystem that thrives without them.

[DJ FC]

And this is why people think you're a fucking moron... because you are!

I say that the government needs to provide education, I didn't say the current system didn't have problems. You aren't even arguing the issue in half of your post, so please stop being a little bitch.

[f3lix]

You said that it "must" be supported by gov't. My reply was to that post, not the poll, which is why I quoted only that section of your post. It figures I'd have to explain this to an ignorant redneck.

[DJ FC]

SHUT THE FUCK UP THREELIX, YOU SUCK AT NUBBLIES NOW LET ME TELL YOU WHY:

You offered no argument about why government shouldn't sponsor education, not a single fucking one.

What you did manage to do was sputter off a few little facts you read somewhere that talk bad about government education as it currently stands.

And where the fuck did you get the national/local argument from? This is nowhere in my post.

Rather, you have managed to mangle any sense of order which I could have provided, you have taken the mind-numbingly simple topic of whether the state should help educate and have interjected it with unrelated garbage.

You suck at life and your parents hate you.

[f3lix]

Must we get all testy and time in CAPS? Come on now, I couldn't have rattled G Dubs.

There is only one arguement that even needs to be brought against gov't sponsored education. Private Schools. They have owned public schools since their inception. I hope you don't need me to explain that further.

A few facts that I read somewhere? I am in the teaching industry, yet am also an advocate for removing poor teachers that only come for a paycheck.

I argue local vs. national not b/c you proclaimed you defend it, but b/c that (to me) is the only acceptable form of gov't sponsorship. Since that is not in place right now, I easily and correctly assumed you supported state or federal.

My parents let me join in their sex, so they must not hate me.

[DJ FC]

1) Private Schools are not funded by the government.
2) Private Schools are better than Public Schools.
so
3) We should have no public schools.

1) Body guards are not funded by the government.
2) Body guards are better than police.
so
3) We should have no public police force.

You suck at reasoning.

[f3lix]

That was absolutly retarded.

[DJ FC]

Almost as retarded as this:

Originally Posted by f3lix

There is only one arguement that even needs to be brought against gov't sponsored education. Private Schools. They have owned public schools since their inception. I hope you don't need me to explain that further.

F3lix just accept the fact that you aren't good at thinking. Please don't try.

If the only reason we shouldn't have public schools is that private schools "own them," then there isn't much of a case for abolishing public schools at all! All privately owned enterprises will be more efficient. But some (protection of private property, national defense, etc.) need to be supplied by the government or else they will never be supplied.

I was baiting you, teasing you, trying to get you to debate the real issue:

The benefits of government sponsored education outweigh the costs: because if education isn't free many people will not get it, and education has massive external benefits beyond the individual receiving it.

But you refuse to debate this; rather you say shit like "OMG THE TESTS AND OMG PRIVATE SCHOOLS ROCK!" You are a libertarian, but are too thick headed to debate basic issues; you just love to spout off idealisms.

[f3lix]

First off, the education isn't free and is all paid through tax dollars. Those paying for private school are double paying. And when the hell did the gov't protect private property!?!? They are eminent domaining so many damn things nowadays and abusing their ability to do so. It use to be for roads and now its being used for businesses and other bull shit. Of course there needs to be a gov't, I'm not sure what point your 2nd paragraph is trying to make.

I, too, believe that education is of our nations highest interest, so I'm not sure why you are arguing that point with me either.

Lastly, you calling me a libertarian as if it's some kind of classification is wrong. I'm almost positive you don't know what a libertarian actually believes, b/c if you did then you wouldn't have even said anything about it.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

First off, the education isn't free and is all paid through tax dollars. Those paying for private school are double paying.

No, taxpayers pay to have society educated, not their children. Children specific expenses such as book rental are payed by parents, but non parents pay the same taxes as parents, so private school parents are not double paying.

Originally Posted by f3lix

And when the hell did the gov't protect private property!?!?

Since its inception.

[f3lix]

Beebs, in many states (not Indiana, of course) there are no book rental fees and the such for parents to pay, as it is all included already. Parents who send their children ARE paying double, b/c they are paying for the public schools through tax dollars AND paying for their kids to go to private school.

There has been a major fuss going on with many tiers of the gov't in reducing their abuse of eminent domain, just google it.

[f3lix]

Here ya go Beebs, now you won't even have to google it.

Jul 26, 2006

(Columbus, Ohio) - Today, in an historic ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of Norwood could not use eminent domain to take Carl and Joy Gamble's home of 35 years, as well as the rental home of Joe Horney and tutoring center owned by Matthew Burton and Sanae Ichikawa Burton, for private development—specifically, a complex of chain stores, condominiums and office space planned by millionaire developer Jeffrey Anderson and his Rookwood Partners.

In a unanimous and lengthy decision, the Court laid out a series of important legal opinions. The Ohio Supreme Court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo decision of June 2005, in which that Court held that local governments can take property from one person and transfer it to another because the new owner might produce more taxes or more jobs than the current one—so-called "economic development." Second, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that state courts must apply "heightened scrutiny" to uses of eminent domain, especially when the property is being taken for use by another private party; according to the Court, lower Ohio courts should not simply rubber-stamp decisions by local government to take property. Next, the Court held that statutes authorizing the taking of property cannot be vague. The "deteriorating" standard used by Norwood "is a standardless standard," and the Court rejected it. Finally, the Court struck down Ohio's statute that allowed property to be taken even before an appeals court ruled that the taking was legal.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Beebs, in many states (not Indiana, of course) there are no book rental fees and the such for parents to pay, as it is all included already. Parents who send their children ARE paying double, b/c they are paying for the public schools through tax dollars AND paying for their kids to go to private school.

There has been a major fuss going on with many tiers of the gov't in reducing their abuse of eminent domain, just google it.

They are paying taxes for public schools as a service to themselves, by educating society everybody benefits, with or without kids. Do you feel that people who pay social securty taxes and then also invest in private retiremant plans are paying double? The entire point of taxes is paying for services that benefit society as a whole, otherwise everybody would pay only for their individual expenses.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Here ya go Beebs, now you won't even have to google it.

Jul 26, 2006

(Columbus, Ohio) - Today, in an historic ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of Norwood could not use eminent domain to take Carl and Joy Gamble's home of 35 years, as well as the rental home of Joe Horney and tutoring center owned by Matthew Burton and Sanae Ichikawa Burton, for private development—specifically, a complex of chain stores, condominiums and office space planned by millionaire developer Jeffrey Anderson and his Rookwood Partners.

In a unanimous and lengthy decision, the Court laid out a series of important legal opinions. The Ohio Supreme Court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo decision of June 2005, in which that Court held that local governments can take property from one person and transfer it to another because the new owner might produce more taxes or more jobs than the current one—so-called "economic development." Second, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that state courts must apply "heightened scrutiny" to uses of eminent domain, especially when the property is being taken for use by another private party; according to the Court, lower Ohio courts should not simply rubber-stamp decisions by local government to take property. Next, the Court held that statutes authorizing the taking of property cannot be vague. The "deteriorating" standard used by Norwood "is a standardless standard," and the Court rejected it. Finally, the Court struck down Ohio's statute that allowed property to be taken even before an appeals court ruled that the taking was legal.

Thanks, I had no idea what eminent domain ment, what would we do without you? Eminent domain is the exception,thats why it must go to places like the Ohio supreme court. I understand the government does not absolutely protect property, since we do need to build roads and other infrastructure, but that doesn't mean property isn't protected as a whole. I'm not saying I agree with some of the absurd uses of eminant domain, but it is just assinine pretending the government doesn't protect the right to property.

[f3lix]

If you can give me one explaination of how the Kelo decision protects the right to property, then I will stop being "assinine" and will shut up.

[DJ FC]

Do you have a car f3lix? Can I have it? I suppose I don't even have to ask since "private property" is fiction.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

If you can give me one explaination of how the Kelo decision protects the right to property, then I will stop being "assinine" and will shut up.

It doesn't, although the fact that there has to even be a Kelo decision is a sign that property is protected by the government.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Beebs

It doesn't, although the fact that there has to even be a Kelo decision is a sign that property is protected by the government.

Please explain

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Please explain

Government does not protect property rights = guy with M16 comes and takes the property.

Government does protect property rights = Government petitions for eminant domain, case goes to court, case goes to appeals court, case goes to Supreme court, case is not accepted as precedent in a state supreme court and will probably continue to not be accepted.

Surely you see the difference.

[f3lix]

Government does not protect property rights = Voting 5-4 that eminent domain can be used to transfer property to another private owner who will "create jobs and increase tax revenue."

Seems to me that Big Brother just loves getting bigger.