4th Grade "Science" Quiz - Were you there?

[Foxfyre]

That is a false assumption though. What happened in the thousand years before government came along? Were people completely unable to live in the past? Of course not. What you are noting is not the natural state of things but exactly what happens after government comes in and takes care of things for you.

Certainly there needs to be some BASIC safety nets for people to fall back on. There needs to be some help in those areas BUT what we have done is place them totally in governmental hands. Of course people don’t care about education anymore, they don’t have to. The government takes that over for them so why bother. They don’t care for the family anymore; the government is there to take care of that.

That is a symptom of taking responsibility away from the people; you end up with people that are no longer responsible. What a surprise.

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

And you’ll likely wait forever for such an explanation, as what you describe occurring is indeed not.

No one is being forced to do anything against his will, neither property nor individual rights are being violated.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact measures determined necessary and proper when exercising its powers, both expressed and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

It is necessary and proper for the Federal government to ensure that all children receive at least a basic education; indeed, in many cases the Constitution mandates it. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

This is particularly true with regard to public education, where schools are responsible for the education of all the children, and the community as a whole has a stake in that responsibility through the taxes members of the community pay.

So nothing is being ‘taken,’ forcibly or otherwise.

The Founders intended the federal government to have powers expressly allowed by the Constitution and no others. Brown vs the Board of education did not mandate education. It mandated that schools could not be segregated by law. The Founders would have considered McCulloch v Maryland itself unconstitutional and the Justices who ruled in favor of it worthy of impeachment. Don't forget that it was the Supreme Court who produced Dred Scott allowing slavery and ordering the federal government to stay out of it, and Plessy v Ferguson authorizing segregated schools as long as the schools were 'equal'.

If you look to the Supreme Court to be the infallible authority, the Founders would say you would be as much a fool as you would be if you trust an unrestricted government to be honorable in much of anything.

 

[numan]

The Founders intended the federal government to have powers expressly allowed by the Constitution and no others.

Fuck the Founding Fathers. They were traitorous creeps.

Don't forget that it was the Supreme Court who produced Dred Scott allowing slavery and ordering the federal government to stay out of it, and Plessy v Ferguson authorizing segregated schools as long as the schools were 'equal'.

If you look to the Supreme Court to be the infallible authority, the Founders would say you would be as much a fool as you would be if you trust an unrestricted government to be honorable in much of anything.

"...if you trust a government to be honorable in much of anything."

There!! Fixed that for you !!

And who set up the Supreme Court? Answer: the God-Damned Founding Fathers !!
.

 

[numan]

Since you are throwing down the challenge gauntlet let's attempt to address it in as evenhanded manner as possible. Begin by explaining why the innocent children of Citizen A must be quite literally punished for the "sins of their parent"? Must they beg and starve in the streets because Citizen A has fallen sick and can no longer work and provide them with food and shelter? Now your response is that this is the responsibility of a "moral society" but you attribute "sinister" motives to the government of "We the people" when it attempts to do what is "morally" right and care for those unfortunate children. You see it as "sinister" for the government to use taxpayer funds to provide for the less fortunate amongst us. What is your realistic alternative for this "moral society"? How else should these children be cared for? Are you proposing child labor workhouses so that they can earn their keep? You are demanding an "explanation" while having no viable alternative solution.

And they never will have a viable alternative solution.

These sinister "libertarians" have no problem with the resources of society being squandered on a Satanic War Machine.

These creatures are enemies of life and servants of death.
.

 

[westwall]

The Founders intended the federal government to have powers expressly allowed by the Constitution and no others.

Fuck the Founding Fathers. They were traitorous creeps.

Don't forget that it was the Supreme Court who produced Dred Scott allowing slavery and ordering the federal government to stay out of it, and Plessy v Ferguson authorizing segregated schools as long as the schools were 'equal'.

If you look to the Supreme Court to be the infallible authority, the Founders would say you would be as much a fool as you would be if you trust an unrestricted government to be honorable in much of anything.

"...if you trust a government to be honorable in much of anything."

There!! Fixed that for you !!

And who set up the Supreme Court? Answer: the God-Damned Founding Fathers !!
.

And yet they created a country that took over 200 years for asshats like you to screw up. Unfortunately they didn't realize the depths to which humanity would descend.

 

[Flopper]

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

And you’ll likely wait forever for such an explanation, as what you describe occurring is indeed not.

No one is being forced to do anything against his will, neither property nor individual rights are being violated.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact measures determined necessary and proper when exercising its powers, both expressed and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

It is necessary and proper for the Federal government to ensure that all children receive at least a basic education; indeed, in many cases the Constitution mandates it. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

This is particularly true with regard to public education, where schools are responsible for the education of all the children, and the community as a whole has a stake in that responsibility through the taxes members of the community pay.

So nothing is being ‘taken,’ forcibly or otherwise.

The Founders intended the federal government to have powers expressly allowed by the Constitution and no others. Brown vs the Board of education did not mandate education. It mandated that schools could not be segregated by law. The Founders would have considered McCulloch v Maryland itself unconstitutional and the Justices who ruled in favor of it worthy of impeachment. Don't forget that it was the Supreme Court who produced Dred Scott allowing slavery and ordering the federal government to stay out of it, and Plessy v Ferguson authorizing segregated schools as long as the schools were 'equal'.

If you look to the Supreme Court to be the infallible authority, the Founders would say you would be as much a fool as you would be if you trust an unrestricted government to be honorable in much of anything.

What the founding fathers thought is about as relevant today as the thoughts of 12 century monks. Conservatives use the opinions of the founders to justify damn near every issue. Frankly, I think it's much more important what the American people think.

 

[Foxfyre]

And you’ll likely wait forever for such an explanation, as what you describe occurring is indeed not.

No one is being forced to do anything against his will, neither property nor individual rights are being violated.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact measures determined necessary and proper when exercising its powers, both expressed and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

It is necessary and proper for the Federal government to ensure that all children receive at least a basic education; indeed, in many cases the Constitution mandates it. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

This is particularly true with regard to public education, where schools are responsible for the education of all the children, and the community as a whole has a stake in that responsibility through the taxes members of the community pay.

So nothing is being ‘taken,’ forcibly or otherwise.

The Founders intended the federal government to have powers expressly allowed by the Constitution and no others. Brown vs the Board of education did not mandate education. It mandated that schools could not be segregated by law. The Founders would have considered McCulloch v Maryland itself unconstitutional and the Justices who ruled in favor of it worthy of impeachment. Don't forget that it was the Supreme Court who produced Dred Scott allowing slavery and ordering the federal government to stay out of it, and Plessy v Ferguson authorizing segregated schools as long as the schools were 'equal'.

If you look to the Supreme Court to be the infallible authority, the Founders would say you would be as much a fool as you would be if you trust an unrestricted government to be honorable in much of anything.

What the founding fathers thought is about as relevant today as the thoughts of 12 century monks. Conservatives use the opinions of the founders to justify damn near every issue. Frankly, I think it's much more important what the American people think.

The Founders were American people. And many of us who embrace the concepts, primciples, values, and ideals they promoted are also American people.

 

[numan]

The Founders were American people. And many of us who embrace the concepts, primciples, values, and ideals they promoted are also American people.

Stupid American people.
.

 

[numan]

The government isn't an entirely separate entity from the people - it is the people.

You don't know much history, do you?

Treating it as a malevolent enemy is wrong.

The US government -- and brainwashing system -- ARE malevolent enemies.
.

 

[Flopper]

The Founders intended the federal government to have powers expressly allowed by the Constitution and no others. Brown vs the Board of education did not mandate education. It mandated that schools could not be segregated by law. The Founders would have considered McCulloch v Maryland itself unconstitutional and the Justices who ruled in favor of it worthy of impeachment. Don't forget that it was the Supreme Court who produced Dred Scott allowing slavery and ordering the federal government to stay out of it, and Plessy v Ferguson authorizing segregated schools as long as the schools were 'equal'.

If you look to the Supreme Court to be the infallible authority, the Founders would say you would be as much a fool as you would be if you trust an unrestricted government to be honorable in much of anything.

What the founding fathers thought is about as relevant today as the thoughts of 12 century monks. Conservatives use the opinions of the founders to justify damn near every issue. Frankly, I think it's much more important what the American people think.

The Founders were American people. And many of us who embrace the concepts, primciples, values, and ideals they promoted are also American people.

You can say the same thing about many Americans today. With each year that passes, we will by necessity, have to make more liberal interpretations of the founder's ideas because the world is changing rapidly. The kind of freedoms that were possible 200 years ago are not possible today and they will be even more restrictive as the population grows and we become more dependent on others.

Any hope at solutions to our problems lie in our future not in our past.

 

[Foxfyre]

What the founding fathers thought is about as relevant today as the thoughts of 12 century monks. Conservatives use the opinions of the founders to justify damn near every issue. Frankly, I think it's much more important what the American people think.

The Founders were American people. And many of us who embrace the concepts, primciples, values, and ideals they promoted are also American people.

You can say the same thing about many Americans today. With each year that passes, we will by necessity, have to make more liberal interpretations of the founder's ideas because the world is changing rapidly. The kind of freedoms that were possible 200 years ago are not possible today and they will be even more restrictive as the population grows and we become more dependent on others.

Any hope at solutions to our problems lie in our future not in our past.

Will we make ever more liberal interpretations and value judgments and thereby move us back into bondage of authoritarian government and relinquish the liberties that the Founders risked their very lives, their fortunes, and everything they hold dear to give us? Probably as I believe this is the last generation that has any chance to reverse the course we are on and there may be more people like you than there are people like me.

But do I believe the freedom that was possible 200 years ago is not possible today? No I do not. And until I draw my last breath, I will keep trying to reach the people we have left who see that freedom as the most excellent way for people to live.

 

[Flopper]

The Founders were American people. And many of us who embrace the concepts, primciples, values, and ideals they promoted are also American people.

You can say the same thing about many Americans today. With each year that passes, we will by necessity, have to make more liberal interpretations of the founder's ideas because the world is changing rapidly. The kind of freedoms that were possible 200 years ago are not possible today and they will be even more restrictive as the population grows and we become more dependent on others.

Any hope at solutions to our problems lie in our future not in our past.

Will we make ever more liberal interpretations and value judgments and thereby move us back into bondage of authoritarian government and relinquish the liberties that the Founders risked their very lives, their fortunes, and everything they hold dear to give us? Probably as I believe this is the last generation that has any chance to reverse the course we are on and there may be more people like you than there are people like me.

But do I believe the freedom that was possible 200 years ago is not possible today? No I do not. And until I draw my last breath, I will keep trying to reach the people we have left who see that freedom as the most excellent way for people to live.

200 years ago we were free to pollute our waters and air; no one cared because we didn't know the far reaching effect. We could travel wherever we wanted without government documentation and inspections because people were not afraid of terrorism, the spread of infectious disease, and economic consequences of immigration. We were free to graze our livestock on open range because there was plenty of it. We could hunt any game we wanted wherever we wanted because it was there in great abundance. We were free to clear cut forest and spoil the soil because there was an unlimited supply. We were free to steal native American's land simply because we thought it was for benefit of the nation. We were free to deny people basis human rights because of the color of their skin because we lacked the fortitude to stand up for what was right.

In 200 years, from now the changes will be far greater than the last 200 years as will the limitations on personal freedom. Effects of climate change, population growth, globalization, change in race and ethnicity, and advancement of technology will make the 18th century look like the dark ages.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can say the same thing about many Americans today. With each year that passes, we will by necessity, have to make more liberal interpretations of the founder's ideas because the world is changing rapidly. The kind of freedoms that were possible 200 years ago are not possible today and they will be even more restrictive as the population grows and we become more dependent on others.

Any hope at solutions to our problems lie in our future not in our past.

Will we make ever more liberal interpretations and value judgments and thereby move us back into bondage of authoritarian government and relinquish the liberties that the Founders risked their very lives, their fortunes, and everything they hold dear to give us? Probably as I believe this is the last generation that has any chance to reverse the course we are on and there may be more people like you than there are people like me.

But do I believe the freedom that was possible 200 years ago is not possible today? No I do not. And until I draw my last breath, I will keep trying to reach the people we have left who see that freedom as the most excellent way for people to live.

200 years ago we were free to pollute our waters and air; no one cared because we didn't know the far reaching effect. We could travel wherever we wanted without government documentation and inspections because people were not afraid of terrorism, the spread of infectious disease, and economic consequences of immigration. We were free to graze our livestock on open range because there was plenty of it. We could hunt any game we wanted wherever we wanted because it was there in great abundance. We were free to clear cut forest and spoil the soil because there was an unlimited supply. We were free to steal native American's land simply because we thought it was for benefit of the nation. We were free to deny people basis human rights because of the color of their skin because we lacked the fortitude to stand up for what was right.

In 200 years, from now the changes will be far greater than the last 200 years as will the limitations on personal freedom. Effects of climate change, population growth, globalization, change in race and ethnicity, and advancement of technology will make the 18th century look like the dark ages.

And with this post, all you have done is demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what freedoms I am talking about, or the principles of unalienable rights the Founders were talking about. And no amount of time passing, technology, or demographics affects those. But I'm not going to derail this thread by getting into it. I invite you to visit the thread "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" and I'll be happy to go toe to toe with you there.

Going back to the thesis of this thread, unless there is freedom to teach creationism as well as to not teach creationism in the 4th grade (or any other grade for that matter), we have no freedom at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Will we make ever more liberal interpretations and value judgments and thereby move us back into bondage of authoritarian government and relinquish the liberties that the Founders risked their very lives, their fortunes, and everything they hold dear to give us? Probably as I believe this is the last generation that has any chance to reverse the course we are on and there may be more people like you than there are people like me.

But do I believe the freedom that was possible 200 years ago is not possible today? No I do not. And until I draw my last breath, I will keep trying to reach the people we have left who see that freedom as the most excellent way for people to live.

200 years ago we were free to pollute our waters and air; no one cared because we didn't know the far reaching effect. We could travel wherever we wanted without government documentation and inspections because people were not afraid of terrorism, the spread of infectious disease, and economic consequences of immigration. We were free to graze our livestock on open range because there was plenty of it. We could hunt any game we wanted wherever we wanted because it was there in great abundance. We were free to clear cut forest and spoil the soil because there was an unlimited supply. We were free to steal native American's land simply because we thought it was for benefit of the nation. We were free to deny people basis human rights because of the color of their skin because we lacked the fortitude to stand up for what was right.

In 200 years, from now the changes will be far greater than the last 200 years as will the limitations on personal freedom. Effects of climate change, population growth, globalization, change in race and ethnicity, and advancement of technology will make the 18th century look like the dark ages.

And with this post, all you have done is demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what freedoms I am talking about, or the principles of unalienable rights the Founders were talking about. And no amount of time passing, technology, or demographics affects those. But I'm not going to derail this thread by getting into it. I invite you to visit the thread "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" and I'll be happy to go toe to toe with you there.

Going back to the thesis of this thread, unless there is freedom to teach creationism as well as to not teach creationism in the 4th grade (or any other grade for that matter), we have no freedom at all.

Religion should not be taught in public schools

If creationism is to be taught as science, it should be held to the same scientific scrutiny as any other theory. If creationism cannot hold up to scientific scrutiny, then that is what should be taught to children.

Then, they can go home and teach their parents

 

[idb]

Will we make ever more liberal interpretations and value judgments and thereby move us back into bondage of authoritarian government and relinquish the liberties that the Founders risked their very lives, their fortunes, and everything they hold dear to give us? Probably as I believe this is the last generation that has any chance to reverse the course we are on and there may be more people like you than there are people like me.

But do I believe the freedom that was possible 200 years ago is not possible today? No I do not. And until I draw my last breath, I will keep trying to reach the people we have left who see that freedom as the most excellent way for people to live.

200 years ago we were free to pollute our waters and air; no one cared because we didn't know the far reaching effect. We could travel wherever we wanted without government documentation and inspections because people were not afraid of terrorism, the spread of infectious disease, and economic consequences of immigration. We were free to graze our livestock on open range because there was plenty of it. We could hunt any game we wanted wherever we wanted because it was there in great abundance. We were free to clear cut forest and spoil the soil because there was an unlimited supply. We were free to steal native American's land simply because we thought it was for benefit of the nation. We were free to deny people basis human rights because of the color of their skin because we lacked the fortitude to stand up for what was right.

In 200 years, from now the changes will be far greater than the last 200 years as will the limitations on personal freedom. Effects of climate change, population growth, globalization, change in race and ethnicity, and advancement of technology will make the 18th century look like the dark ages.

And with this post, all you have done is demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what freedoms I am talking about, or the principles of unalienable rights the Founders were talking about. And no amount of time passing, technology, or demographics affects those. But I'm not going to derail this thread by getting into it. I invite you to visit the thread "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" and I'll be happy to go toe to toe with you there.

Going back to the thesis of this thread, unless there is freedom to teach creationism as well as to not teach creationism in the 4th grade (or any other grade for that matter), we have no freedom at all.

You're right of course.
And there can be no freedom unless NAMBLA can have equal time in the classroom, or Al Quaeda can have a chance to put their view, or homo sexuals are able to recruit to their lifestyle, or trade unionists, or smelly OWS people or..........

 

[idb]

The government isn't an entirely separate entity from the people - it is the people.

You don't know much history, do you?

Treating it as a malevolent enemy is wrong.

The US government -- and brainwashing system -- ARE malevolent enemies.
.

So...what's to be done?!

 

[numan]

The government isn't an entirely separate entity from the people - it is the people.

You don't know much history, do you?

Treating it as a malevolent enemy is wrong.

The US government -- and brainwashing system -- ARE malevolent enemies.

So...what's to be done?!

The human race consists of a vast mass of zombies controled by a few vampires at the top. But the really frightening thing is that even the vampires are zombies.

The US government, brainwashing system and economic tyranny are far too firmly and deeply entrenched to be directly opposed. They will continue to rule, getting worse and worse, until their own internal contradictions and idiocies bring them crashing down.

Social systems are never overthrown -- they always commit suicide first.

So the most efficient tactic is to hold tight, making your preparations, until you and your well-trained confederates can step in and take control amid the chaos of the Old Society's collapse.

The best prepared and most sensible "shadow government" will be the ones who lead the New Order.

Or, perhaps, more realistically, will be the garbage men who have to clean up the mess.
.

 

[idb]

You don't know much history, do you?

The US government -- and brainwashing system -- ARE malevolent enemies.

So...what's to be done?!

The human race consists of a vast mass of zombies controled by a few vampires at the top. But the really frightening thing is that even the vampires are zombies.

The US government, brainwashing system and economic tyranny are far too firmly and deeply entrenched to be directly opposed. They will continue to rule, getting worse and worse, until their own internal contradictions and idiocies bring them crashing down.

Social systems are never overthrown -- they always commit suicide first.

So the most efficient tactic is to hold tight, making your preparations, until you and your well-trained confederates can step in and take control amid the chaos of the Old Society's collapse.

The best prepared and most sensible "shadow government" will be the ones who lead the New Order.

Or, perhaps, more realistically, will be the garbage men who have to clean up the mess.
.

Or you could shut yourself away in Glenn Beck's proposed fortress - Independence, USA.

 

[numan]

Or you could shut yourself away in Glenn Beck's proposed fortress - Independence, USA.

Is he going to name it "The Alamo"?
.

 

[idb]

Or you could shut yourself away in Glenn Beck's proposed fortress - Independence, USA.

Is he going to name it "The Alamo"?
.

Independence, USA.
Glenn Beck?s Utopian Community: A Place Called Independence, U.S.A. | TIME.com

 

[FA_Q2]

200 years ago we were free to pollute our waters and air; no one cared because we didn't know the far reaching effect. We could travel wherever we wanted without government documentation and inspections because people were not afraid of terrorism, the spread of infectious disease, and economic consequences of immigration. We were free to graze our livestock on open range because there was plenty of it. We could hunt any game we wanted wherever we wanted because it was there in great abundance. We were free to clear cut forest and spoil the soil because there was an unlimited supply. We were free to steal native American's land simply because we thought it was for benefit of the nation. We were free to deny people basis human rights because of the color of their skin because we lacked the fortitude to stand up for what was right.

In 200 years, from now the changes will be far greater than the last 200 years as will the limitations on personal freedom. Effects of climate change, population growth, globalization, change in race and ethnicity, and advancement of technology will make the 18th century look like the dark ages.

And with this post, all you have done is demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what freedoms I am talking about, or the principles of unalienable rights the Founders were talking about. And no amount of time passing, technology, or demographics affects those. But I'm not going to derail this thread by getting into it. I invite you to visit the thread "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" and I'll be happy to go toe to toe with you there.

Going back to the thesis of this thread, unless there is freedom to teach creationism as well as to not teach creationism in the 4th grade (or any other grade for that matter), we have no freedom at all.

You're right of course.
And there can be no freedom unless NAMBLA can have equal time in the classroom, or Al Quaeda can have a chance to put their view, or homo sexuals are able to recruit to their lifestyle, or trade unionists, or smelly OWS people or..........

The funny thing here is that you are correct, even if you were posting that in jest (as that is what I gather from your tone).

Of course you mired the concept with the ‘equal time’ statement that was not the point. If you had read Fox post you would see that she was not demanding that the gates be open for everyone in public institutions but rather that the local communities be able to set up their schools as they see fit. I would further that to private institution but I don’t think that she would limit it there.

I am somewhat divided on weather or not such should extend to the public schools but the sentiment is the same, freedom to set up your community as those in it see fit does not exist when you declare that the federal government somehow needs to step in and make arbitrary limitations.