# Bill to Improve Education in America: Rand Paul Introduces S.4979



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

Short and sweet. One sentence bill...

“The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2022.”









						S.4979 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): A bill to terminate the Department of Education.
					

Summary of S.4979 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): A bill to terminate the Department of Education.



					www.congress.gov
				




That is all.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

Good Morning, btw.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 8, 2021)

Rand for president, 2024.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Idiot



Tell us about it...


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> Short and sweet. One sentence bill...
> 
> “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2022.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot





Is a pussy hat better?


----------



## AFrench2 (Feb 8, 2021)

Using the US Senate to troll. Wow, how droll.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> Short and sweet. One sentence bill...
> 
> “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2022.”
> 
> That is all.



You know that the  Department of Ed if funded by fiscal year, about $68 billion in the CR.  That would leave $50 billion in limbo.  And a cabinet officer with nothing to do and $50 billion to do it with.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

They have no business, or AUTHORITY, to be involved in schools anyway.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 8, 2021)

I like Rand, good critical thinker, he should be on TEE VEE telling the truth.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > Short and sweet. One sentence bill...
> ...


Ever since they created the Dept. of Ed, college tuition has gone out of control.

You know, if they got rid of the Department of Ed, there would be no need to fund it at all, and there would be NO cabinet officer to begin with.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> They have no business, or AUTHORITY, to be involved in schools anyway.


Congress certainly has the authority, 

*Commerce Clause | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information ...*


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > They have no business, or AUTHORITY, to be involved in schools anyway.
> ...


Lol
Yea, i totally see where they have the authority to regulate and fund public schools.
I feel so ENLIGHTENED!


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> You know that the  Department of Ed if funded by fiscal year, about $68 billion in the CR.  That would leave $50 billion in limbo.  And a cabinet officer with nothing to do and $50 billion to do it with.





MisterBeale said:


> You know, if they got rid of the Department of Ed, there would be no need to fund it at all, and there would be NO cabinet officer to begin with.



The Rand Paul legislation does nothing to address any of those points, so the funding would continue, and the sec of ed would continue.

As the dept of ed has been funded by CR (continuing resolution) it means it's funding can't be cut without 60 votes in the senate.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Lol
> Yea, i totally see where they have the authority to regulate and fund public schools.
> I feel so ENLIGHTENED!


You can start with 
*Wickard v. Filburn :: 317 U.S. 111 (1942)*


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

Can’t believe what a Douchebag Rand Paul is turning into


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Lol
> ...


Thanks for making me read another irrelevant post.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Can’t believe what a Douchebag Rand Paul is turning into


That Pesky Constitution | FreedomWorks 
"that pesky constitution"


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Can’t believe what a Douchebag Rand Paul is turning into
> ...



?


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> You can start with
> *Wickard v. Filburn :: 317 U.S. 111 (1942)*





TNHarley said:


> Thanks for making me read another irrelevant post.


You questioned congresses authority for the Department of Education.

I answered.

You could at least thank me for educating you.  (about education)  And I don't even have a constitutional mandate to do so.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You call him a douchebag because he supports the Constitution and you do not.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > You can start with
> ...


Commerce has nothing to do with public schools.
Your link is about ACTUAL interstate commerce, not public schools.
Do you understand now?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



I have sworn to defend the Constitution

Nothing prevents a Dept of Education


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Nothing prevents a Dept of Education


Thats the whole point. It isnt even mentioned.
Thats what makes it unconstitutional.
You swore to defend a a document you dont even understand?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing prevents a Dept of Education
> ...


You really don’t understand the Constitution do you?
It is only four pages long and does not provide point by point This is allowed, This isn’t


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


It gives the federal govt a specific list of powers. It even specifically states that anything else is left to the states.
Its called 3rd grade civics


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Commerce has nothing to do with public schools.
> Your link is about ACTUAL interstate commerce, not public schools.
> Do you understand now?


Wickard, followed by Miller, followed by dozens of more cases.  

*United States v. Lopez :: 514 U.S. 549 (1995)*

Which restricted the powers of congress under the commerce clause, upheld their authority over public schools.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Federal Government has broad powers. 
Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Federal Government has broad powers.
> Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has


Probably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers.  The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages.  They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Wickard, followed by Miller, followed by dozens of more cases.
> 
> *United States v. Lopez :: 514 U.S. 549 (1995)*
> 
> Which restricted the powers of congress under the commerce clause, upheld their authority over public schools.



You have no idea what you're talking about. lol.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Federal Government has broad powers.
> Your limited interpretation is not supported by the courts. Never has



Yeah, you're gonna have to help us out and find judicial review in Article III.

The constitution was designed to "strictly limit" government.

Not the electorate.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Probably 90% of the powers of congress are derived from the explicit and implicit powers.  The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages.  They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.



This pablum is especially laughable.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. lol.

But you can dream...


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Federal Government has broad powers.
> ...


It has worked well so far. We do not want 18th century minds telling the 21 st century what to do


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> The founding fathers didn't spell out in details which would have consumed hundreds of pages.



See The Federalist, dummy.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Federal Government has broad powers.
> ...


Show where the constitution says anything about strictly limiting Government

We the People limit Government


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Commerce has nothing to do with public schools.
> ...


Another irrelevant link.
3 strikes and youre OUT!


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> *United States v. Lopez :: 514 U.S. 549 (1995)*
> 
> Which restricted the powers of congress under the commerce clause, upheld their authority over public schools.





Natural Citizen said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about. lol.


Read the cliff notes of the case.

This is like Heller V DC.  The majority opinion made a law unconstitutional, but at the same time confirmed previous powers of congress.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Says the guy that believes in a type of totalitarian govt based off 12th century England.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

The scope of the Department ofEducation needs to be expanded to control those States that do a shit job


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > meaner gene said:
> ...


Actually it is you trapped in the 18th century

Th


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


It has a limited set of powers.
You are an idiot that cant read basic English.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


So you are saying people today are too stupid to read? lol
Good point, i reckon.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> Yeah, you're gonna have to help us out and find judicial review in Article III.
> 
> The constitution was designed to "strictly limit" government.



You make two good points, because Art 3 makes no mention of "judicial review", that was case law under John Marshall.

The other point about limiting government. The constitution said it's purpose was to promote the general welfare, which is an extremely broad mandate.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you're gonna have to help us out and find judicial review in Article III.
> ...


Promote the general welfare through its enumerated powers. It even SAYS THAT in art 1 sec 8


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > They thought future generations could figure out what they meant in their limited verbiage.
> ...


Actually 18th century minds are telling us what to do in broad terms, but leaving it for 21st century minds to fit their intentions into a modern world.

Back in the day, the press required the person to have an actual printing press, printing ink on paper.  Now the press includes people with a BLOG.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 8, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> I like Rand, good critical thinker, he should be on TEE VEE telling the truth.



Trump's second term Fauci would be in Gitmo


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Show where the constitution says anything about strictly limiting Government
> 
> We the People limit Government



You have to read the blueprint for the constitution, as referenced by its authors, The Federalist. Those would be all of those pages explaining this that meaner gene said didn't exist, heh heh. I don't think meaner gene knows what he's getting himself into here, but it'll be funny to watch when he realizes.

For instance, let us learn from Feseralist #45, by Madison, emphasizing that adoption of the Constitution would create a government of enumerated, and therefore strictly limited, powers. Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined... [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce...." Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, "will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous."


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> The scope of the Department ofEducation needs to be expanded to control those States that do a shit job



That would be my take on "equal protection" combined with  "privileges and immunities"


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...


Sorry
Not playing

Dept of Education has been around 40 years. Show me a single case where it was declared unconstitutional and we can start from there


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> The other point about limiting government. The constitution said it's purpose was to promote the general welfare, which is an extremely broad mandate.





TNHarley said:


> Promote the general welfare through its enumerated powers. It even SAYS THAT in art 1 sec 8


Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.  Basically interpreted in order to carry out their mandates.  An example being the power of the senate to try private citizens.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > meaner gene said:
> ...


They left an amendment process.
OF course, they dont use that process because it would be hard to get any of their federal supremacist bullshit passed.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Sorry
> Not playing
> 
> Dept of Education has been around 40 years. Show me a single case where it was declared unconstitutional and we can start from there



I just did.

You have to play. The Founders themselves left us the blueprint for the constitution in the Federalist. They described it as such specifically. And they did so because they knoew people down the road would be making the argument you're making here.

Come on, RWer, you're smarter tha nthat.

Sure, they've got away with it. Heck, Republicans used to run on abolishing the Department of Education. Not any more. Now your establishment Republicans are no different than the other side of the big government gravy train.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > The other point about limiting government. The constitution said it's purpose was to promote the general welfare, which is an extremely broad mandate.
> ...


Where does the Constitution say that?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> They left an amendment process.
> OF course, they dont use that process because it would be hard to get any of their federal supremacist bullshit passed.



I got to chuckling at the mention of Wickard/Filburn earlier. Heh heh.

The funny thing about that was that the court decided that a farmer growing his wheat for purely personal use still affected Interstate Commerce, presumably by _not_ participating in it. lolol. The SCOTUS has been utterly abusing the Commerce Clause for decades. Crazy...

That's especially why the founders were so strategic in giving the judicial the very least power of the branches.  Basically the courts have been giving themselves power. Largely due to a derelict congress, but still...


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> Madison said: ...." Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, "will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous."



Which is why the federalists papers do not carry the weight you would give them.

Modern reality dictates how the text applies to the modern world.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry
> ...


I’ve got 40 years of Dept of Education that says you are wrong

Show me a single case declaring it unconstitutional. Otherwise, it is Constitutional


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> They left an amendment process.
> OF course, they dont use that process because it would be hard to get any of their federal supremacist bullshit passed.



Even the most wordy of amendments fall far short of defining what they meant, leaving "wiggle room" as not to restrict their meaning from expanding into more modern times.

Imagine if the 2nd amendment said,* the right to bear flintlocks.*


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> > Madison said: ...." Federal tax collectors, Madison assured everyone, "will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous."
> ...


The federalist papers establishes intent. Which might not be too important to federal supremacists, i reckon.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > They left an amendment process.
> ...


Its called an amendment. A constitutional amendment.
The document isnt "alive" like you federal supremacists try to claim.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> *Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.*  Basically interpreted in order to carry out their mandates.  An example being the power of the senate to try private citizens.





TNHarley said:


> Where does the Constitution say that?


*Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.* 

The constitution doesn't waste time saying what logic dictates doesn't need to be said.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

"the constitution means this ^%&"
"ok where does it say that?"
"it doesnt"
/thread


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > *Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.*  Basically interpreted in order to carry out their mandates.  An example being the power of the senate to try private citizens.
> ...


Where does it mention these "inherent powers" you speak of, mr. hamilton?


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> I got to chuckling at the mention of Wickard/Filburn earlier. Heh heh.


That's because you don't realize it is what made upholding the federal laws against marijuana, even in states that legalized it.  Read Antonin Scalia.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> The federalist papers establishes intent. Which might not be too important to federal supremacists, i reckon.


That is a liberal argument.  Conservatives are "texturalists"  They go by what they said, not by what they meant to say. 

And of course, you have federalists on both sides arguing what they thought or wanted the constitutions clauses to mean.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

Rand Paul is from Kentucky

If any state needs a Dept of Education, it is Kentucky


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> Imagine if the 2nd amendment said,* the right to bear flintlocks.*





TNHarley said:


> Its called an amendment. A constitutional amendment.
> The document isnt "alive" like you federal supremacists try to claim.


And they made the amendment process so difficult and so daunting, that only compelling and fundamental issues would be added to the constitution. 

Micromanaging it's content would never survive the requirement that 3/4ths of states debate and agree to it's necessity.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

If Rand Paul thinks the Dept of Education is Unconstitutional

Why doesn’t he take it to the Supreme Court?
Conservatives have a 6-3 majority


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> *Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.*
> 
> The constitution doesn't waste time saying what logic dictates doesn't need to be said.





TNHarley said:


> Where does it mention these "inherent powers" you speak of, mr. hamilton?


One example is the right of congress to compel witnesses to testify before them.  The constitution gives no enumerated power of congress over a private citizen.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine if the 2nd amendment said,* the right to bear flintlocks.*
> ...


Exactly. That was the point.
If the rest of the country wanted your statism, the amendment process wouldnt be so difficult, ey?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> I’ve got 40 years of Dept of Education that says you are wrong
> 
> Show me a single case declaring it unconstitutional. Otherwise, it is Constitutional



Constitutionally speaking, case law is irrelevant, RWer.

Has it stopped the courts from abusing it? Of course not. But constitutionally speaking ,case law is irrelevant.'

In fact, we just saw the SCOTUS effectively say that the other day. It's about time.

But, yes, I get it. 40 years is a long time. Hey, take the money and run, though, screw it. I don't hate you for it.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Rand Paul is from Kentucky
> 
> If any state needs a Dept of Education, it is Kentucky



Or Louisiana and Arkansas


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve got 40 years of Dept of Education that says you are wrong
> ...


It is a legal Department until a court declares otherwise

What are you waiting for?
Explain the Federalist Papers to them


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> Exactly. That was the point.
> If the rest of the country wanted your statism, the amendment process wouldnt be so difficult, ey?


It also means they worded the constitution in broad enough terms that amendments would not be needed to stretch it to cover issues not imagined when it was written.

They wrote it so its principles would apply not just to the times when it was written, but centuries into the future.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> Constitutionally speaking, case law is irrelevant, RWer.
> 
> Has it stopped the courts from abusing it? Of course not. But constitutionally speaking ,case law is irrelevant.'
> 
> ...


If it wasn't for case law, the USSC would not have a say in what the constitution means.  That is not an enumerated power or jurisdiction of Article 3.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > *Congress also has inherent powers not enumerated in the constitution.*
> ...


umm clause 18 of sec 8
*To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers*, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
If ones testimony was helped in creating laws, it is an enumerated power.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> One example is the right of congress to compel witnesses to testify before them.  The constitution gives no enumerated power of congress over a private citizen.





TNHarley said:


> umm clause 18 of sec 8
> *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers*, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> If ones testimony was helped in creating laws, it is an enumerated power.


You know that "laws" have to be signed by the president of the united states.   Congresses compelling private citizens before them is not a "law", it's an inherent power.  Otherwise the chief executive would in violation of separation of powers have veto power over the work of congress. And one house of congress would have veto power over the work of the other house.

In short, you posted B.S. that it's covered by congresses making a law to compel witnesses.


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > One example is the right of congress to compel witnesses to testify before them.  The constitution gives no enumerated power of congress over a private citizen.
> ...


It is an ENUMERATED power if it pertains to writing constitutional legislation.
I dont think you are reading what i am writing.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> In short, you posted B.S. that it's covered by congresses making a law to compel witnesses.





TNHarley said:


> *It is an ENUMERATED power if it pertains to writing constitutional legislation.*
> I dont think you are reading what i am writing.


You're confused. It's an inherent power, not an enumerated one.  Consult a dictionary if you don't know the difference.

As i've been saying it's an inherent power.


----------



## meaner gene (Feb 8, 2021)

Lesson 12
					

What is federalism?  What are the differences between federal and state's rights?



					usgovernment-phs.weebly.com
				



.

There are powers that the states have that aren't listed on the diagram above.  States can establish public schools, *however,*there is also a FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and if states want Federal money, they have to follow regulations set-up by the Department of Education.  

 The Constitution is the one that gives them power.

 There are three types of Delegated powers:*implied, expressed, *and *inherent. 

Implied Powers are powers that aren't spelled out in the Constitution.  

Expressed Powers are powers that are written directly into the Constitution.  

Inherent Powers. These are powers that aren't anywhere in the Constitution.   *


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

Man, I just put a water pump on my neighbor's truck in like...pft....what...an hour and a half since I last posted? Who_ is _that kid. Sheeit.

Anyway. I'm hungry. I'm gonna make something to eat and maybe check back later. Certainly the bill stands about as much chance as a snowman in July anyway.

But it's refreshing to know that at least someone in Washington is acting like a Republican, even if it has to be a libertarian holding his nose and carrying the R.

As I'd mentioned earlier in the thread, the Republicans used to run on abolishing the Department of Education. Dunno what happened...


----------



## TNHarley (Feb 8, 2021)

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > In short, you posted B.S. that it's covered by congresses making a law to compel witnesses.
> ...


You are right. 
I thought it was a law. It was only a Supreme Court ruling. My apologies.
Therefore, it needs to be a law.
Inherent power doesn't actually exist.


----------



## buttercup (Feb 8, 2021)

The Republican party has definitely lost its way.  Ron Paul has been saying that for a long time.  Current Republican voters don't seem to care though, and keep voting in the neocons and phonies.

This clip was from the '08 debates where he hit this answer out of the park, but the pertinent part is from 1:50 - 2:00.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Feb 8, 2021)

buttercup said:


> The Republican party has definitely lost its way.  Ron Paul has been saying that for a long time.  Current Republican voters don't seem to care though, and keep voting in the neocons and phonies.
> 
> This clip was from the '08 debates where he hit this answer out of the park, but the pertinent part is from 1:50 - 2:00.



He hit it out of the park. 

We only get a statesman like him about once about every 100 years. 

It's unfortunate.


----------



## jackflash (Feb 8, 2021)

Natural Citizen said:


> Short and sweet. One sentence bill...
> 
> “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2022.”
> 
> ...


Best move for the country is get federal government out of education!


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 8, 2021)

MisterBeale said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> > Natural Citizen said:
> ...


Since the department of education took over--kids have scored lower and lower on tests....
Get rid of it.


----------

