• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nationalizing the Education System

Nationalize Schools?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 18.9%

  • No

    Votes: 53 71.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 9.5%
  • Total voters
    74
MoSurveyor said:
A refusal to enforce federal law is not what I call nullification. Making it illegal to enforce federal law within a state is what I call nullification - and it'll never fly. Like I said, Missouri has such a law but I have as yet to see anyone thrown in jail or even fined for enforcing federal law.
Click to expand...

Refusal to enforce is the definition, but alright. Even so, it happened when the northern states refused to follow federal laws requiring slaves to be sent back to their owners, and it happened when states refused to take part in prohibition. It also happens every time a jury decides in favor of a defendant, when the juries refuse to recognize the charges as crimes (which happened in about 60% of all prohibition cases). Also, the verbage of both Kansas's and Missouri's pro-2A laws actually use the words null and void. To nullify is to make something 'null'...
 
phishfi said:
Refusal to enforce is the definition, but alright. Even so, it happened when the northern states refused to follow federal laws requiring slaves to be sent back to their owners, and it happened when states refused to take part in prohibition. It also happens every time a jury decides in favor of a defendant, when the juries refuse to recognize the charges as crimes (which happened in about 60% of all prohibition cases). Also, the verbage of both Kansas's and Missouri's pro-2A laws actually use the words null and void. To nullify is to make something 'null'...
Click to expand...
Yes, I've read the law (at least mine) and am well aware of what it says. I also know no one has been imprisoned or fined for a violation of that law regardless of what it says. When we manage to convict someone for enforcing or following federal law I'll believe your stance. Until then, the State politicians are just pissing in the wind to win votes.
 
Cephus said:
You're welcome to do that too if you really want to. Gun barrel in your mouth and have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I can also fight against what is wrong. Note here that "fight against" does not necessarily mean violence.

The biggest and most telling argument against Nationalizing education is the abuses in the system. Abuses that already exist from the Fed sticking it's nose in anyway. Our schools have quit educating the young, they focus on brain washing them into liberal ideals.

Unfortunately, the following comes from local news articles over time and I don't have links, but the following was what has been on that news at various times.

In Oklahoma, 65% of schools in the OKC/Norman metropolitan area failed to meet standards for math, English and sciences. The majority of high school seniors in Oklahoma could not find Louisiana on a map. However, almost all students could give brief oral history of Martin Luther King, jr. They could also explain to you that global warming is real and caused by automobile emission. This is just a couple of quick items, not a full list. Funny, they can tell you all about liberal things that do nothing to prepare them for the job market but cannot muster skills necessary to enter the job market.

A friend of mine actually had her 13 year old daughter ask her if it was ok not to be homosexual. Apparently the homosexual tolerance education in her local school had gotten to the point that normal students were made to feel ashamed of being normal. Strange, that school is also one of the worse academically performing ones in the city.
 
DVSentinel said:
I can also fight against what is wrong. Note here that "fight against" does not necessarily mean violence.

The biggest and most telling argument against Nationalizing education is the abuses in the system. Abuses that already exist from the Fed sticking it's nose in anyway. Our schools have quit educating the young, they focus on brain washing them into liberal ideals.

Unfortunately, the following comes from local news articles over time and I don't have links, but the following was what has been on that news at various times.

In Oklahoma, 65% of schools in the OKC/Norman metropolitan area failed to meet standards for math, English and sciences. The majority of high school seniors in Oklahoma could not find Louisiana on a map. However, almost all students could give brief oral history of Martin Luther King, jr. They could also explain to you that global warming is real and caused by automobile emission. This is just a couple of quick items, not a full list. Funny, they can tell you all about liberal things that do nothing to prepare them for the job market but cannot muster skills necessary to enter the job market.

A friend of mine actually had her 13 year old daughter ask her if it was ok not to be homosexual. Apparently the homosexual tolerance education in her local school had gotten to the point that normal students were made to feel ashamed of being normal. Strange, that school is also one of the worse academically performing ones in the city.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther King, jr. is a "liberal thing"?!? Well, if there was any doubt before we all know where you stand, now.
 
phishfi said:
Lol... so now he's a racist? Oh brother... anything to stay off topic!
Click to expand...
I didn't call him that and I didn't imply that.

That YOU just did is an interesting note on YOUR outlook, though. LOL!
 
phishfi said:
Lol... so now he's a racist? Oh brother... anything to stay off topic!
Click to expand...

Yep, Apparently actually having students learn to read and write is bad as long as we teach them about MLK. A few months back there was even a fuss about how a Kindergarten student was berated by a teacher because she colored MLK purple instead of black/brown.

I have no problem with teaching about MLK when they have progressed through history to the point that the Civil rights struggle and that era is being taught. But really, teaching students that, when you haven't even really begun to teach them the three R's, that is political agenda, not education.
 
DVSentinel said:
Yep, Apparently actually having students learn to read and write is bad as long as we teach them about MLK. A few months back there was even a fuss about how a Kindergarten student was berated by a teacher because she colored MLK purple instead of black/brown.

I have no problem with teaching about MLK when they have progressed through history to the point that the Civil rights struggle and that era is being taught. But really, teaching students that, when you haven't even really begun to teach them the three R's, that is political agenda, not education.
Click to expand...

Which is a great reason to have the curriculum decided at yes lowest level! That way parents have the most say and involvement...
 
DVSentinel said:
I can also fight against what is wrong. Note here that "fight against" does not necessarily mean violence.
Click to expand...

By all means, go for it. Nobody said you had to like it and nobody said that, if there are legal methods for trying to change things, you shouldn't engage in those. I only said that, while something is the law of the land, you need to accept it and follow it or deal with the consequences thereof.

The biggest and most telling argument against Nationalizing education is the abuses in the system. Abuses that already exist from the Fed sticking it's nose in anyway. Our schools have quit educating the young, they focus on brain washing them into liberal ideals.
Click to expand...

And you don't think that state and local governments aren't just as abusive? If you're going to have a problem, and honestly, you will always have a problem, I'd rather have a consistent problem that can be identified and dealt with, rather than a million different problems.

In Oklahoma, 65% of schools in the OKC/Norman metropolitan area failed to meet standards for math, English and sciences. The majority of high school seniors in Oklahoma could not find Louisiana on a map. However, almost all students could give brief oral history of Martin Luther King, jr. They could also explain to you that global warming is real and caused by automobile emission. This is just a couple of quick items, not a full list. Funny, they can tell you all about liberal things that do nothing to prepare them for the job market but cannot muster skills necessary to enter the job market.
Click to expand...

Which is why we need national standards so that they'd all be required to understand all of the important subjects. I'm sure that down the road, you've got kids learning all about Jesus and creationism in the classroom and a state over, they're learning how to feel good about themselves and apply for welfare.

A friend of mine actually had her 13 year old daughter ask her if it was ok not to be homosexual. Apparently the homosexual tolerance education in her local school had gotten to the point that normal students were made to feel ashamed of being normal. Strange, that school is also one of the worse academically performing ones in the city.
Click to expand...

That's about as idiotic as asking if it's okay not to be black. Yes, some of these programs can go too far, but so can parents who teach their kids to hate others.
 
DVSentinel said:
Yep, Apparently actually having students learn to read and write is bad as long as we teach them about MLK. A few months back there was even a fuss about how a Kindergarten student was berated by a teacher because she colored MLK purple instead of black/brown.

I have no problem with teaching about MLK when they have progressed through history to the point that the Civil rights struggle and that era is being taught. But really, teaching students that, when you haven't even really begun to teach them the three R's, that is political agenda, not education.
Click to expand...
And how do you know it came from the school at all? No way in hell the parents could have pushed that part, is there? Do you also imagine that a child in public school who can recite certain Bible verses also learned that at school? LOL!
 
Cephus said:
That's about as idiotic as asking if it's okay not to be black. Yes, some of these programs can go too far, but so can parents who teach their kids to hate others.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'd say parents like that go a lot further and are a lot worse. With them the child usually doesn't have the option to question.
 
phishfi said:
You're behind comprehending this, apparently. I gave you a specific case, the fugitive slave act, where states (almost every state in the north) nullified a federal law, and you refuse to see it. I'm saying that the nullification by the good people in the north, was so effective at nullifying federal law that it made the confederacy secede.

How isn't that one specific case when the states threw out a giving by the supreme court and showed their sovereignty absolutely?
Click to expand...

You gave us YOUR interpretation of an event in history and the effort of some states to grandstand. All you gave us was you own spin on your own beliefs.

There was no successful nullification which overrode a SC decision. From the wikipedia article on constititional nullification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws, including the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's ruling in 1854 that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional. None of these efforts were legally upheld.
Click to expand...

The key word in the first sentence being ATTEMPTED.

The key words in the second sentence are the entire things NONE OF THESE EFFORTS WERE LEGALLY UPHELD.

Please note what I did there. First, I provided a link to the verifiable evidence. Secondly, I quoted the actual evidence. That is how it is done.

Again, you may not want to muddy the waters with silly stories of don quixotic impotence. It simply proves my point and destroys yours.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Thus far (off the top of my head) you were unaware until educated that FDR's solution to hunger in America was to destroy large amounts of food, that the progressive era claimed that competition was "wasteful", and you didn't know who was sovereign in the American system of government.
Click to expand...

every time you attempt to bring up this red herring I have told you the same thing: you presented this event in history in such a biased and skewed way that it was unrecognizable from the way you described it.

It does not matter what Jefferson said about judicial review. it is irrelevant and has no effect or impact on the result of Marbury v. Madison and the power assumed by the Court.
 
DVSentinel said:
Whether something is criminal or treason is often determined by someones point of view. After all, the founding fathers were guilty of treason, from the point of view of the British.
Click to expand...

England was a foreign country thousands of miles away ruling colonies in their empire. The USA is our own nation.

There is a huge and significant difference.
 
haymarket said:
You gave us YOUR interpretation of an event in history and the effort of some states to grandstand. All you gave us was you own spin on your own beliefs.

There was no successful nullification which overrode a SC decision. From the wikipedia article on constititional nullification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)



The key word in the first sentence being ATTEMPTED.

The key words in the second sentence are the entire things NONE OF THESE EFFORTS WERE LEGALLY UPHELD.

Please note what I did there. First, I provided a link to the verifiable evidence. Secondly, I quoted the actual evidence. That is how it is done.

Again, you may not want to muddy the waters with silly stories of don quixotic impotence. It simply proves my point and destroys yours.
Click to expand...

Then explain how 19 States have citizens smoking pot right now, with DC following suit, in direct conflicting with the federal government.

Explain how the northern States' refusal to abide by the fugitive slave act ended up being so effective that the federal government now recognizes slavery as a gross infraction on individual rights.
 
iacardsfan said:
I know that seeing as the Federal Government is not given the power to meddle with education, and that allows the state to assume that power, the Constitution though does state that the Federal Government has the power to do things that will provide for the general welfare. Would you support such a measure to nationalize schools? Feel free to explain your vote!
Click to expand...

No. The constitution says that congress may lay and collect taxes in order to provide welfare of the united states. Read it again:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

To lay and collect taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states. So congress has a limited power to tax. This does not translate into a power to operate schools.
 
Fiddytree said:
When most of America's view of education is through the lens of the entire nation, you're going to be interested in gauging how the entire country performs (typically against other nations). When you have been concerned about the status of public education since the early 1980s, you'll be convinced that education is in a downfall, regardless of the limitations of such a view. As a result you want simple, easy to understand measurements that, on the surface, seem to measure exactly what you want without complications involved in the interpretation of said measurement. The easiest way to accomplish that task is to promote standardized tests, and to emphasize gains in test proficiency. This would have a side effect of "teaching to the test," because that's what you mostly want.

Despite the protests of teaching to the test, I see few substantive alternatives to America's largely exaggerated fear of falling behind nationally. Hell, not even the libertarians are able to undermine this philosophy, because they are still framing everything nationally, nor are they promoting alternate means of assessment, despite their statements to the contrary.
Click to expand...

So basically what you're saying is we're putting national pride over the students need to actually learn something useful in the real world.. Sounds about right. I mean, after all, figuring out how many apples little timmy has after picking 5 and eating 2 is so much more important that learning about career options, college options, debt, taxes, and other things that come directly after high school when these kids go out into the real world. Because real life doesn't kick you in the nuts or anything when you have no idea what the **** you're doing at first.
 
haymarket said:
every time you attempt to bring up this red herring I have told you the same thing: you presented this event in history in such a biased and skewed way that it was unrecognizable from the way you described it.

It does not matter what Jefferson said about judicial review. it is irrelevant and has no effect or impact on the result of Marbury v. Madison and the power assumed by the Court.
Click to expand...

:lol: I said that Roosevelt destroyed food. Your response made it clear you ha no idea what I was talking about. And it continues to be funny especially in light of the fact that apparently you also did not know who was sovereign under the American form of government. :lamo

haymarket said:
England was a foreign country thousands of miles away ruling colonies in their empire. The USA is our own nation.

There is a huge and significant difference.
Click to expand...

:doh

English Common Law forms much of the basis of American Law and is held to be part of our binding legal tradition, oh Haymarket who "taught" government.



maybe you should quit this conversation while you're behind.
 
Federalist said:
No it's not a nation. It's a union of sovereign states.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that I do not get that comment as I do not speak Farrightwingese.

Why is it that when your statements seem to come from some very unusual value system that has no actual resemblence to real world reality I google what you claim and find out it comes from far right libertarian sources?

The United States Is Not a Nation! by Brion McClanahan

The United States Is Not a Nation!

by Brion McClanahan


I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford English Dictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directions and submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use the Oxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, because they have probably been taught since first grade in the public "school" system to submit the first definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following:

Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (from dictionary.com)

State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from dictionary.com)

How profound, statist…and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United States should simply be the "United State." A state is simply a "territory…of a government"? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to the founding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correct this mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context.
Click to expand...

And in that gobbledeygook we get a double bonus no less! Not only do we get the silly statement that the USA is NOT A NATION - right in the title no less - but we also get the normal libertarian accusatory pointed finger invoking their ultimate insult at any non believer labeling them the hated name of STATIST. :doh


Such nonsense may indeed be part of the ethos of far right libertarianism - at least among the devotees and those who faithfully follow the marching orders of Lew Rockwell and the von Mises Institute but it is strictly Mad Hatter Alice In Wonderland gibberish for everyone else.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:lol: I said that Roosevelt destroyed food. Your response made it clear you ha no idea what I was talking about. And it continues to be funny especially in light of the fact that apparently you also did not know who was sovereign under the American form of government. :lamo
Click to expand...

Your statement is false as you prevented a skewed and biased outlook on FDR which was unrecognizable compared to reality. :doh

The sovereign statement is completely misinterpreted by you as I was clearly talking about the power of the Supreme Court regarding judicial review. :doh

In both cases you attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. :roll:
 
phishfi said:
Then explain how 19 States have citizens smoking pot right now, with DC following suit, in direct conflicting with the federal government.

Explain how the northern States' refusal to abide by the fugitive slave act ended up being so effective that the federal government now recognizes slavery as a gross infraction on individual rights.
Click to expand...

The key words in your sentence being RIGHT NOW - a clear admission that this is a controversy in which we are in the middle of and is far from decided.

I have absolutely what you mean by your question about slavery as it is rather convoluted, pointless and is completely irrelevant with the reality that nullification was never legally successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom