Decaf wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
More rumor and innuendo from RushReader above. Take the "Sowell" quote. He said, referring to Obama, "He thinks higher teacher pay is the answer to the abysmal failures of our education system, which is already far more expensive than the education provided in countries whose students have for decades consistently outperformed ours on international tests."

Teacher pay is a big part of it, since the low pay takes a large part of people who would be interested in it out of the equation. If Doctors only made $30K a year, do you think we'd have a doctor shortage? Yup.

Curriculum is another big issue. How can we ever be taken seriously in science, for example, when most local school boards, controlled, unfortunately, by people like RushReader, won't let science teachers teach evolution; and a much higher percentage of high school students still believe that man and dinosaurs roams the earth at the same time, since the truth would conflict with the Biblical explanation of the creation? Forty-two percent of Americans believe that all living things, including humans, have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. And Sowell wonders why our students are outperformed by foreign students??? I think he needs to return to school.

But I digress. Having Obama (and he won't be perfect, no President ever has been) as the next President will be great, especially compared to the dimwit in the office now.

Watching RushReader's reaction to it, however, will be priceless.

Yet another Anti-Christ's cry for forced atheism .

OK Professor, explain how believing in the theory of evolution, over believing in God, gives one scientist the edge over another scientist who is in the same field?
Ah, Decaf, please read comprehend my post above. I said nothing about scientists. Here's a quiz even you should be able to handle, though I know that is asking a lot. Show me where in my post above the word scientist even appears.

I was talking about education in general, particularly high schools and jr. high schools, which is where evolution would be taught in science classes. They're controlled by local school boards who, unfortunately, often carry their religious biases and bigotry into the board room, where it can and often does affect curriculum.

When so many Americans still believe in the biblical version of creation because, well, that is what the Bible says, why should we expect American high schoolers to fare better on tests (particularly in science) than their international counterparts who don't carry that baggage? Are they just smarter, Decaf? Does the average French or British or Spanish or Japanese student just have a higher IQ than the average American student? No, but it does have something to do with exploring opposing viewpoints and examining evidence. It's called the "scientific method" and, if not allowed in public schools because of a fear that students will choose evolution over the creation story, for example, dumbs down students.

That said, any so called scientist who denies evolution is in the distinct minority on the subject. They are kinda like "flat earthers"...folks to be humored and ignored.

Loved your previous post about the article from Fox News (isn't that an oxymoron?) from 2004 that listed all the "accomplishments" in Iraq, though. I laughed for days.

Decaf is one of Dubss' other handles. Thus do you truly believe that you can hold a logical discussion with him?

Decaf you need to come to God, you need to bow to Him, instead of attempting to make Him bow to your idea of reality. You are on the road to secular humanism and atheism if you continue on your path. Humble yourself, man, humble yourself.

Wren wrote:
Decaf is one of Dubss' other handles. Thus do you truly believe that you can hold a logical discussion with him?

Decaf you need to come to God, you need to bow to Him, instead of attempting to make Him bow to your idea of reality. You are on the road to secular humanism and atheism if you continue on your path. Humble yourself, man, humble yourself.

As if you know something about humility.

Just Reading wrote:
SilentReader wrote:
This is an analysis of Socialism as translated from the book Socialism by Ludvig Von Mises.

Socialism
1 The State and Economic Activity

It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State.*20 The socialistic State owns all material factors of production and thus directs it. This transfer need not be carried out with due observance of the formalities elaborated for property transfers according to the law set up in the historical epoch which is based on private property in the means of production. Still less important in such a process of transfer is the traditional terminology of Law. Ownership is power of disposal, and when this power of disposal is divorced from its traditional name and handed over to a legal institution which bears a new name, the old terminology is essentially unimportant in the matter. Not the word but the thing must be considered. Limitation of the rights of owners as well as formal transference is a means of socialization. If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State.

I.2.1
People often fail to perceive the fundamental difference between the liberal and the anarchistic idea. Anarchism rejects all coercive social organizations, and repudiates coercion as a social technique. It wishes in fact to abolish the State and the legal order, because it believes that society could do better without them. It does not fear anarchical disorder because it believes that without compulsion men would unite for social co-operation and would behave in the manner that social life demands. Anarchism as such is neither liberal nor socialistic: it moves on a different plane from either. Whoever denies the basic idea of Anarchism, whoever denies that it is or ever will be possible to unite men without coercion under a binding legal order for peaceful co-operation, will, whether liberal or socialist, repudiate anarchistic ideals. All liberal and socialist theories based on a strict logical connection of ideas have constructed their systems with due regard to coercion, utterly rejecting Anarchism. Both recognize the necessity of the legal order, though for neither is it the same in content and extent. Liberalism does not contest the need of a legal order when it restricts the field of State activity, and certainly does not regard the State as an evil, or as a necessary evil. Its attitude to the problem of ownership and not its dislike of the "person" of the State is the characteristic of the liberal view of the problem of the State. Since it desires private ownership in the means of production it must, logically, reject all that conflicts with this ideal. As for Socialism, as soon as it has turned fundamentally from Anarchism, it must necessarily try to extend the field controlled by the compulsory order of the State, for its explicit aim is to abolish the "anarchy of production." Far from abolishing State and compulsion it seeks to extend governmental action to a field which Liberalism would leave free. Socialistic writers, especially those who recommend Socialism for ethical reasons, like to say that in a socialistic society public welfare would be the foremost aim of the State, whereas Liberalism considers only the interests of a particular class. Now one can only judge of the value of a social form of organization, liberal or socialistic, when a thorough investigation has provided a clear picture of what it achieves. But that Socialism alone has the public welfare in view can at once be denied. Liberalism champions private property in the means of production because it expects a higher standard of living from such an economic organization, not because it wishes to help the owners. In the liberal economic system more would be produced than in the socialistic. The surplus would not benefit only the owners. According to Liberalism therefore, to combat the errors of Socialism is by no means the particular interest of the rich. It concerns even the poorest, who would be injured just as much by Socialism. Whether or not one accepts this, to impute a narrow class interest to Liberalism is erroneous. The systems, in fact, differ not in their aims but in the means by which they wish to pursue them.

SilentReader Just a question or two!!

Why do you just always print or post what others say??

Do you not have a thought in your own head that you can write??

You should try and lead your own life and not let others do it for you!!!!

Did you not read the post I posted before this one? Those were my own thoughts. Everything I post is my own thoughts except when I put something in italics. I thought I was adding to that post by posting the words of a well-known economist who was a expert on Socialism. The previous post was my thoughts about Socialism and it's adverse influence on people's initiative and ability to move up in the world.

Hopefully, since you got nothing out of what I posted at all, someone else will. I only regret answering your question, since it obviously fell on deaf ears. The mistake won't be made twice.

SilentReader wrote:
ThomasK wrote:

I would like to know more about this "plan" to redistribute income. How does Obama plan to do this? How much is going to take, from who, and how is he going to give it back, to who? I think this is a pretty important issue to understand.

Since Obama is the most Liberal Senator in the Congress his plan is the Liberal Plan.

Obama believes in the redistribution of wealth which translates into Socialism. He wants to take away much more of the money of the wealthy, including the middle class, and put it into the governments coffers so that he can squander it and give it back to us in the form of government regulated hand-outs. This in turn gives the government more power so that they can continue to impose their rules and regulations over us, the people, who are creating this money to begin with. More government regulation and control in turn takes away the initiative of the people and keeps us where they want us. Under their supreme control. Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism. Socialism takes away the initiative of those who make this country great. The entrepreneurs are the backbone of America. They are America. Obama wants to take away all of that and seize more of the money of the people who create the wealth just so he can build his socialistic society and redistribute the money according to the way he, as representing the government, wants to redistribute it. In other words he is for bigger government.

Of course, this same man, Obama, has benefitted from America. He becomes a Senator and boom he has enough money to build himself a $1.6 million dollar home, with the help of his dubious friends, like Rezko. (By the way, he did it the wrong way, and we'll hear more about Rezkogate before his campaign is over.) Redistribution of wealth doesn't really apply to his redistributing his own wealth. His charitable giving is pretty meagre. He wants to redistribute your wealth by imposing higher taxes (all taxes) and by reinstating the death tax, among other things.

So you can count on Obama taking more of your money, and more of mine. It's as simple as that.

To understand more about the Liberal economic agenda read a book, any book, on Socialism because that's the Liberal's aim for America. There is nothing that will kill the initiative of the American people (or any people for that matter) more than Socialism. The Liberal economic agenda for America.

I'm reposting my post for your benefit, JustReading. However, it was directed to ThomasK in an attempt to answer his important question, rather than indulge in the usual Liberal name-calling that occurs on this forum.

These words are my words.

SilentReader wrote:
Wren wrote:
Decaf is one of Dubss' other handles. Thus do you truly believe that you can hold a logical discussion with him?

Decaf you need to come to God, you need to bow to Him, instead of attempting to make Him bow to your idea of reality. You are on the road to secular humanism and atheism if you continue on your path. Humble yourself, man, humble yourself.

As if you know something about humility.

And you are an expert on it?