Ron Paul V. Ed Schultz
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
"The Department of education plays a role in good education"
Wow. Schultz is a moron.
"I do believe in the Constitution! I do! I swear!"
Wow. Schultz is a moron.
"I do believe in the Constitution! I do! I swear!"
Black87LSC
Dedicated LVC Member
Ron Paul is righteous :Beer
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
My high schools budget allotted $32 per student. :\
Ron Paul is pretty crazy. Founding fathers also said to keep church and state separate.
I think this quote from the video sums it up:
"What about your state of Texas when they the droubts out there on those raches, would you just throw them under the bus to?
Well, come on now, the only people that would be losing money would be the big wealthy cooperate farmers"
Ron Paul is pretty crazy. Founding fathers also said to keep church and state separate.
I think this quote from the video sums it up:
"What about your state of Texas when they the droubts out there on those raches, would you just throw them under the bus to?
Well, come on now, the only people that would be losing money would be the big wealthy cooperate farmers"
...what are you talking about.
$32 per student on what?
Actually, the founding fathers wrote the establishment clause to the constitution. The "separation of church and state" wasn't written in the constitution. But that's all besides the point.
What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?
Huh?
You do realize that just because something is perceived to be good, it isn't necessarily constitutional...
And have you taken the time to at least learn what FEDERALISM is?
Ron Paul is really the one who summed it up, "you're the one who believes in the constitution when you want to."
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
That's what the budget allotted us, quarterly i think. I dont remember, it was a while ago. But we were the most under funded school in the state. Just saying. Sad times.
That wasn't written no, but believed by a few of them. I dont know specifically which ones except Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Seemed to me like he cared more about his guidelines then the ideas behind them not written in stone.
He was just concerned about the money issues...
I know what federalism is. It's outdated.
I'm leaning towards the crazy dude and his show on this one...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
What about the separation of:
School and state
Healthcare and state
Corporations and state
Banking and state
Energy and state
Agriculture and state
My guess is that you don't have any problem with those.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Banking, energy aren't really tied to the state.
You forgot the parcel post though.
And no, those are things, not beliefs, so i don't have a problem with them.
There is no school district in the country that only spends $148 a student. That is absolutely absurd. Utah spends the least per students, and even that is well over $5k a year, per student.
I'd be interested in really knowing, let's see if the school got its moneys worth.
"Believed by a a few of them?" What was?
This little "point" is arguably very much off topic, but I fail to see what point your making. We can discuss the establishment clause, we can discuss what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he wrote of "a wall of separation" to the Danbury Baptists. But before there's any point in that, what do you think the establishment clause means and what did Jefferson mean when he wrote of the wall of separation? And I'd have to ask, how is it relevant to the discussion? The implication is that someone, in this case your implying it's Ron Paul, don't consider the 1st amendment to be important. Why do you say that?
No, he was concerned about the constitutionality of it.
He is concerned about the vast size and growth of the federal government, something in bold contrast to the original intention of of the founders who fought for LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
But the money issue is important, because the reckless, unconstitutional spending leads to dangerous fiscal policy and tyrannical tax policy.
Schultz is very candid, he says, in no uncertain terms, that he feels that the constitution is out of date and it's no longer applicable to the modern world. He DOES NOT embrace the constitution, he DOES NOT embrace the rule of law, "the people voted for it" is an example of mob rule.
And you go on to echo a similar point:
Why is it out dated?
Why is limited government "out dated."
Federalism wasn't about convenience. It wasn't to save time commuting.
It's about LIBERTY. It's about limited government, direct accountability, and personal responsibility.
Let's talk about federalism a bit. What do you understand it to mean?
Do you know what the Federalist and anti-federalist papers are?
Have you taken the time to read any of them?
Here's a couple quick links to them:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/foundingdocs/antifedpap/main.html
Then, to be abundantly clear, YOU only support the constitution, the founding document of our Republic, when it's convenient for you.
And to quickly address a liberal misconception- just because the federal government is performing a role now, the mere fact that a department were to be closed WOULD NOT mean that role wouldn't be performed by someone else. It could be done by the state or local government, or, imagine this, it could be done by the PRIVATE SECTOR. I'll refrain from elaborating right now.
You have a problem with "beliefs" but not "actions?"
You need to elaborate, because none of that makes any sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did they say that? The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It doesn't say anything about "separation of church and state". In fact, I have yet to that phrase (or some sort of variation) anywhere in the constitution. Where did the founding fathers say to "keep church and state separate"?
There has been a lot of distortion through the years on this, and, no offense, but you are perpetuating that distortion here (unintentionally, I am sure). The framers didn't have a problem with the Church intermingling with state. Most of the states, at the time, has official state churches and/or religions. The idea of separation of church and state came from Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut. In the context of the letter, it was clear that Jefferson's "wall" had the state and church on one side, and the federal government on the other. So, in Jefferson's mind, there was only a prohibition on the church and government intermingling at the Federal level; it was a reflection of federalist principles. And, given Jefferson's actions in office and out, that wall only seemed to apply in certain instances.
The term didn't get distorted and reach the effect of law until an activist Supreme Court got a hold of the idea in the mid 20th century.
daves2000ls
Dedicated LVC Member
Something Dr. Paul failed to mention in the interview that he does write in his Revolution book. And that is, if the program is really viewed as necessary by the people than it could be implemented through the ratification of a new amendment. That's why the process is there. The founders knew that our constitution would need to be updated with the times and included in it the means to change it.