Another Republican Sen. has a Dirty Little Affair

[strandinthewind]

This is becoming laughable -- note this hypocritical sack of shiitte is, of course, a born again christian whose "morally superior" record is as follows:

* Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities. (Apr 1998)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 11% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
* Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

* Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
* Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

So, he thinks faggots and baby killers are the worse thing on the planet and he hides his extra marital affair until blackmail forces him to admit it.

And, this was going to run for the R ticket in 2012 :rolleyes:

I get that the D's have affairs -- it is just they are not so high and mighty about their personal life and so shtiittey to the non Refug christians while doin the cheatin :nod:
______________________________________________________________

Ensign admits affair; sources say blackmail involved
Manu Raju, Alexander Burns Manu Raju, Alexander Burns 1 hr 34 mins ago

Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign said Tuesday evening he is “truly sorry” about an affair he had last year with a campaign staffer, going public with an embarrassing admission about his marital infidelity.

The news certainly damages any hope Ensign has of running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 – he had fueled speculation about a presidential run with a recent visit to Iowa — and it may also hinder what has been a steady rise in Senate GOP leadership.

Political insiders in the Senate and in Nevada told POLITICO that Ensign began an affair with a staffer several months after he separated from his wife. When Ensign reconciled with his wife, the sources said, he gave the aide a severance package and parted ways.

Sometime later, a Nevada source said, Ensign met with the husband of the woman involved and had what this source described as a positive encounter. Sources said that the man subsequently asked Ensign for a substantial sum of money – at which point Ensign decided to make the affair public. In his Las Vegas press conference, Ensign declined to give specifics about the woman involved but did say she and “her husband were close friends and both of them worked for me.”

At the Tuesday press conference, a contrite Ensign admitted his affair, said his wife sought counseling after the episode, but added that he and his wife have reconciled. Ensign took no questions.

In the statement, the senator said: "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions." He added that he remained committed to his Senate duties.

“Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life,” Ensign said. “If there was ever anything in my life that I could take back, this would be it. I take full responsibility for my actions.”

//
Ensign informed fellow Nevadan Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, about his situation earlier today.
"I don't know the details. I talked with him today,” Reid told POLITICO. “Of course, he's my friend. This is a private, family matter. I just hope that Darlene and he work things out."

Reid said he didn’t offer any advice on how to handle the situation. "I didn't give him any advice. I just told him he's my friend. I'm pulling for him. Anything I can do to help, let me know.”



Ensign, a born again Christian, is chairman of the GOP Policy Committee, making him the highest ranking Republican Senator in Nevada’s history. He has three children. Ensign’s wife Darlene, in a statement to the Las Vegas Sun, said: "Since we found out last year we have worked through the situation and we have come to a reconciliation. This has been difficult on both families. With the help of our family and close friends our marriage has become stronger," Mrs. Ensign said.

Ensign was absent on Capitol Hill Tuesday, skipping the weekly lunch that his committee hosts for GOP senators and its ensuing press conference where party leaders espouse their weekly message.

Word of his expected announcement stunned colleagues, who were preparing for this summer’s big battles over the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor and a health care fight but now have to contend with a drama hovering over one of their leaders.

Elected in 2000, the 51-year-old Ensign has moved up the leadership chain in the Senate. As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2008, Ensign oversaw the devastating losses to GOP candidates. But his party largely spared him of blame, casting it instead on an unpopular president who dragged down the party’s brand. Since then, Ensign has sought to articulate conservative principles and is a mainstay at GOP press conferences deriding Democrats’ domestic policies.

Ensign ran for the Senate in 1998 against Sen. Harry Reid in a nasty, cliffhanger race that Reid – now the Senate majority leader – won by a razor-thin 428 votes. Reid and Ensign have since reached a détente; neither man criticizes the other back home by name.

A staunch fiscal and social conservative, Ensign has been considered a rising star in his party, recently making headlines by speaking at events in Iowa, raising speculation about his interest in a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

It’s not clear exactly how this affair will affect Ensign’s future in the Senate. When former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport men’s room in the summer of 2007, Ensign was among Craig’s toughest critics, saying he should step down since he had been charged with a crime. And during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Ensign, then a Senate candidate, called on Clinton to resign.

John Bresnahan contributed to this story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090616/pl_politico/23813

[mylittledemon]

He's entitled to believe what he wants to, and he's entitled to vote the way he judges to be right. He's a human being after all, not God. So I don't know why your reaction comes across as if you expected this man to be perfect.

Besides, you love it, otherwise you'd have nothing to complain about.

If it were me, and I were lobbying, I'd be more concerned about the dems and libs who aren't voting the way you want them to.

[TeenageMac]

As a proud member of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org), I can only laugh when politicians from the two major parties are caught up in scandals like this!

[mylittledemon]

As a proud member of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org)

I love that you put the link in there.

[strandinthewind]

As a proud member of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org), I can only laugh when politicians from the two major parties are caught up in scandals like this!

I know. I actually could give a rat's a$$ about him or anyone having an affair. I just think it shows the true colors when the most self-righteous have one and then only expose it when, as here, they have to. This douchebag is no more sorry that he boinked the broad than a tick is on a well fed pig. He is just sorry he got caught. Maybe he'll go to rehab . so the other self-righteous hypocrites don't judge him by his own standards that he imposed on everyone else :rolleyes:

[TeenageMac]

I love that you put the link in there.

Haha . . . I knew at least ONE person would pick up on that!
Any possible chance I get - I am always spreading the Libertarian Party name!

[strandinthewind]

Haha . . . I knew at least ONE person would pick up on that!
Any possible chance I get - I am always spreading the Libertarian Party name!

I got it too -- I actually like that party more than the two major ones. Sadly, I fell compelled to vote for the idiot D to keep the even worse R from being in office and completely destroying any free and/or good will that may have been left after the awful W years. I long for the day when a true less govt. candidate has a chance of winning. The problem is people say they want less govt., but they vote for a theocracy.

[strandinthewind]

. . . He's a human being after all, not God . . . .

Actually, he a fukcing hypocrite :nod: All I am saying is he should be judged by the same impossible self-righteous BS standard he judged everyone else by :shrug:

[TeenageMac]

I got it too -- I actually like that party more than the two major ones. Sadly, I fell compelled to vote for the idiot D to keep the even worse R from being in office and completely destroying any free and/or good will that may have been left after the awful W years. I long for the day when a true less govt. candidate has a chance of winning. The problem is people say they want less govt., but they vote for a theocracy.

In the 2008 presidential primary, I supported & worked for Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul was by far the only true conservative in the race - That is, the conservative message of like the likes of Barry Goldwater - Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. As far as Ron Paul goes, even Senator McCain has said and I quote - "Ron Paul is the most honest man in Congress."

My favorite Ron Paul-related video will always be from a Republican debate in January. Paul totally slams these warmongers. Watch as the likes of McCain and Romney squirm around in their chairs - Classic! I truly believe that Ron Paul was the last best hope for America - Now we are forced to embrace socialism, eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAokoMgSDc

These days, the Republican Party has strayed so far away from true conservative values that I don't think I left the party, but it left me. And I've found a great home within the Libertarian Party!

[mylittledemon]

Actually, he a fukcing hypocrite :nod: All I am saying is he should be judged by the same impossible self-righteous BS standard he judged everyone else by :shrug:

aren't 99% of people hypocrites in some way?

[TeenageMac]

More classic Ron Paul, a real Republican -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ_Z_XG0L2c&feature=related.

I realize I'm taking the discussion away from the original post - But I'm just trying to show that there is some light at the end of the tunnel and there are actually people in our government who are real people!

[strandinthewind]

aren't 99% of people hypocrites in some way?

Yes, but they are not using the law to promote their hypocritical ends (money and power) - while demonizing groups of good people. This fukcer wanted to put fags in jail based on his born again values that he shouted at any given opportunity -- maybe he shouted out for Jesus when he came in his whore during the extra marital affair :rolleyes:

Again, he is only sorry he got caught. If he were truly sorry and lived up to his own ideals, he would have admitted the dirty little affair before he got blackmailed into doing so.

[strandinthewind]

More classic Ron Paul, a real Republican -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ_Z_XG0L2c&feature=related.

I realize I'm taking the discussion away from the original post - But I'm just trying to show that there is some light at the end of the tunnel and there are actually people in our government who are real people!

Bah - go ahead. Any discussion is cool with me :cool:

As for Ron Paul - he is okay on some issues, but on others he sucks. Anyone who wants to ban abortion is not for smaller govt. In other words, although I may personally think abortion is wrong, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother as a host, it is the mother's right to abort it. As horrible as that may be to some - if you are for autonomy, you have to be for that or at least the govt. staying out of that :shrug: But, anti-abortionist cannot see it that way.

Note - if the crazy religious right would actually allow discussions of safer sex in lieu of abstention only - abortions would be rarer. But, they just can't abode people fukcing out of wedlock - though, like Ensign - they likely did or are doing it. Again, hypocrites.

[TeenageMac]

Bah - go ahead. Any discussion is cool with me :cool:

As for Ron Paul - he is okay on some issues, but on others he sucks. Anyone who wants to ban abortion is not for smaller govt. In other words, although I may personally think abortion is wrong, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother as a host, it is the mother's right to abort it. As horrible as that may be to some - if you are for autonomy, you have to be for that or at least the govt. staying out of that :shrug: But, anti-abortionist cannot see it that way.

Ron Paul is personally pro-life, yes; however, Ron Paul does not support a federal ban on abortion. Paul believes in federalism, meaning that issues like abortion, as well as same-sex marriage, are state rights issues. Basically, he believes that it is up to the states and the federal government has no authority in issues like abortion. However, I do understand what you are saying and I do see where you are coming from.

And also of note (many people do not know this), Ron Paul is also a doctor, delivering over 4,000 babies in his life.

[mylittledemon]

Again, he is only sorry he got caught. If he were truly sorry and lived up to his own ideals, he would have admitted the dirty little affair before he got blackmailed into doing so.

He's a politician. You ultimately can't trust any of them, I think...

[strandinthewind]

Ron Paul is personally pro-life, yes; however, Ron Paul does not support a federal government ban on abortion. Paul believes in federalism, meaning that issues like abortion, as well as same-sex marriage, are state rights issues. Basically, he believes that it is up to the states and the federal government has no authority in issues like abortion. However, I do understand what you are saying and I do see where you are coming from.

And also of note (many people do not know this), Ron Paul is also a doctor, delivering over 4,000 babies in his career as a doctor.

Actually - he does support banning abortion because despite the states rights rhetoric, he supports defining life as beginning at conception, which would overrule Roe, which he says has damaged the Const. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

[David]

This is becoming laughable -- note this hypocritical sack of shiitte is, of course, a born again christian whose "morally superior" record is as follows:

* Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities. (Apr 1998)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 11% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
* Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

* Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
* Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

I support several of those measures myself. But I'm always overjoyed to see a smarmy politician topple.

[strandinthewind]

[FONT="Arial"] . . . Paul believes in federalism, meaning that issues like abortion, as well as same-sex marriage, are state rights issues. Basically, he believes that it is up to the states and the federal government has no authority in issues like abortion . . . .

What is interesting is the advances in the world since 1776 make state's rights issues not really a workable solution. For example, what is Utah bans blacks and whites from marrying and/or cohabitating. They make it an offense pushable by 20 years in prison. bob the white guy is married to Jill the black girl. While flying to Los Angeles, their plane gets grounded in Salt Lake City, where they spend the night in a hotel. The Salt lake City police arrest and prosecute Bob and Jill, who are now spending 20 years in prison in Utah. That or some other incident like it could happen. So, there must be some hybrid of state's rights, which I suggest is the Fed. govt. guaranteeing basic rights so people can go from state to state without incident.

[strandinthewind]

He's a politician. You ultimately can't trust any of them, I think...

Me too - and it just amazes me that people think the next one is going to be any different.

[strandinthewind]

. . . But I'm always overjoyed to see a smarmy politician topple.

me too - esp. the self-righteous ones :nod:

[TeenageMac]

Actually - he does support banning abortion because despite the states rights rhetoric, he supports defining life as beginning at conception, which would overrule Roe, which he says has damaged the Const. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Watch this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNFF614YyFA. In this video, Paul clearly articulates his position on abortion. Yes, you are right - He does support defining life at the beginning of conception, but he does not support a FEDERAL ban on abortion.

[David]

Anyone who wants to ban abortion is not for smaller govt. But from the anti-abortionist's point of view, abortion is murder. An anti-abortion stance can easily be reconciled with a desire for reining in government. Even the vociferous anti-statists consider outlawing murder a legitimate function of the State.

In other words, although I may personally think abortion is wrong, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother as a host, it is the mother's right to abort it. No, that is not the Libertarian position. The Libertarian position is that the mother has the right to expel the fetus from her body. In practical terms, the two procedures might amount to the same thing; but in philosophical terms, the distinction is extremely important.

[strandinthewind]

Watch this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNFF614YyFA. In this video, Paul clearly articulates his position on abortion. Yes, you are right - He does support defining life at the beginning of conception, but he does not support a FEDERAL ban on abortion.

A Federal law defining life at conception is the same thing. It would be next to impossible for a state to define it any other way because the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The U.S. Const. guarantees Congress can pass laws. Therefore, once Congress passes that law, no state has the power to contravene it.

[strandinthewind]

But from the anti-abortionist's point of view, abortion is murder. An anti-abortion stance can easily be reconciled with a desire for reining in government. Even the vociferous anti-statists consider outlawing murder a legitimate function of the State.

No, that is not the Libertarian position. The Libertarian position is that the mother has the right to expel the fetus from her body. In practical terms, the two procedures might amount to the same thing; but in philosophical terms, the distinction is extremely important.

I know that is not the Libertarian position. I am saying it ought to be because it furthers the ideal of less govt. interference in our lives.

In the end, if the govt. and, more importantly, parents schooled their kids about how not to get preggers (it is so easy not to mind you) - the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies could be prevented. But, they never will. So, there must be the right to choose.

And - if the Libertarians supported the right to chose - they likely would gain tons of support.

[markolas]

As I've said before on this board, I'm opposed to libertarianism (which I once heard described as the political party for Republicans who smoke weed - I thought that was pretty funny, but my ex who is a card-carrying Libertarian, was not amused :laugh: ). Left to their own devices, most people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

As for abortion, my opinion has changed since the last time it was probably discussed here. I'm pro-life, and couldn't give a rat's ass if Roe v. Wade is overturned (which it never will be, btw). The idea that a woman has a right to abort her unborn child is utterly repugnant to me.

Also, people like to act as if before Roe, abortion was universally illegal everywhere in all circumstances, which simply isn't true. If I have my facts right, many if not most states had a "rape or incest" exception (which I'm still not crazy about) prior to Roe, for example.

Ugh. My bf is all about Ron Paul (I don't think he knows half of what's in Paul's platform), but I think he's a fruitcake, to be quite honest. Didn't he want to do away with public schools or something crazy like that?

[markolas]

And - if the Libertarians supported the right to chose - they likely would gain tons of support.

I thought they did. (I know you didn't make it up, but I despise the phrase "right to choose." Right to choose what? Whether or not you want pecans on your vanilla ice cream?)

[David]

As I've said before on this board, I'm opposed to libertarianism (which I once heard described as the political party for Republicans who smoke weed - I thought that was pretty funny, but my ex who is a card-carrying Libertarian, was not amused :laugh: ). Left to their own devices, most people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing. They don't need to be "trusted." They need to be (largely) free of the looooong arm of the State.

Ugh. My bf is all about Ron Paul (I don't think he knows half of what's in Paul's platform), but I think he's a fruitcake, to be quite honest. Didn't he want to do away with public schools or something crazy like that?Is that a bad thing?

I just heard a funny joke:
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: For a bailout.

[strandinthewind]

As I've said before on this board, I'm opposed to libertarianism (which I once heard described as the political party for Republicans who smoke weed - I thought that was pretty funny, but my ex who is a card-carrying Libertarian, was not amused :laugh: ). Left to their own devices, most people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

As for abortion, my opinion has changed since the last time it was probably discussed here. I'm pro-life, and couldn't give a rat's ass if Roe v. Wade is overturned (which it never will be, btw). The idea that a woman has a right to abort her unborn child is utterly repugnant to me . . . .

It's not about you. It's about protecting other people's right to live their own lives without judgment from others. Put into another context that may hit close to home for you, what if the govt. passed a law that said being gay was a crime against nature (which it essentially was until about six years ago) and the majority of people said they could care a less if the law affected peoples' rights because gays were repugnant to them. That would not be fair. Another example would be that anyone who gets AIDS is on their own with no govt support because they got it though sex outside of marriage.


So, I say the fairer route is to get the govt. out of the decisions we make with our own bodies. I fully realize millions will see that as millions of innocent babies dying, but I cannot see any other way - save for the education of people and greater access to birth control.

I thought they did. (I know you didn't make it up, but I despise the phrase "right to choose." Right to choose what? Whether or not you want pecans on your vanilla ice cream?)

The sole issue is the right to choose. You can not be for abortion, but still be for the right to choose because although you think it is a wrong and horrible thing, you recognize another person may not. So, I say who am I to tell them what to do with their own body. It is a hard pill to swallow because to many that means innocent babies will die. So, I say of you don't want an abortion then don't you get one. Just like I say of you don't want gay marriage than don't you marry a gay person. Almost everyone I know cannot lose that inherent judgment and want to control others' lives :shrug:

[markolas]

They don't need to be "trusted." They need to be (largely) free of the looooong arm of the State.

Whatever.

Is that a bad thing?

Well, unless you want a 25% literacy rate. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Well, unless you want a 25% literacy rate. :shrug:

And the poor likely staying well below the poverty line for centuries while the rich kids continue their parents domination of power. Moreover, it is likely free thought will no longer be nurtured. Having said that -- I fully recognize the current public school system for the most part sucks a$$.

[markolas]

It's not about you. It's about protecting other people's right to live their own lives without judgment from others. Put into another context that may hit close to home for you

I reject the idea that abortion and gay sex/gay marriage are morally equivalent, so as far as I'm concerned, the point is moot. :shrug:

And I *really* resent it when people (not talking about you) insist that because I'm gay I have to support abortion rights.

[strandinthewind]

I reject the idea that abortion and gay sex/gay marriage are morally equivalent, so as far as I'm concerned, the point is moot. :shrug:

Actually, they are the same in the sense that they are about the right to live your life and use your body as you see fit without some other person's ideal being imposed on you. Again, who am I to prevent some woman from doing what she wants with her body even though I personally would not do it, found it a horrible thing to do and tantamount to murder, and would advise her not to do it. Another example is the right to die. But, people can't see that. They want others to conform to their ideal. So and again, I conclude if you want people to leave you alone to do as you please, you have to leave them alone in that regard as well.

Interestingly, your being anti right to chose puts you in bed with the very people who want you in jail for exercising your right to privacy (the same right that guarantees abortion) as a gay man. That is a strange place to find yourself :shrug:

[BombaySapphire3]

And I *really* resent it when people (not talking about you) insist that because I'm gay I have to support abortion rights.

Right ..and since you are a gay male it is a choice you'll never have to make..So to sit in judgement of someone who may have to does not even add up.

[mylittledemon]

HAHA...Let's just have a free-for-all society. You know, anything goes! Like what was it...? Sodom & Gomorrah, right?

The way with which we seem to be fighting for such liberties as we feel we deserve, the lesser the world seems to become. Hasn't anyone noticed that things in the world are seemingly at an all time low?

[BombaySapphire3]

HAHA...Let's just have a free-for-all society. You know, anything goes! Like what was it...? Sodom & Gomorrah, right?

The way with which we seem to be fighting for such liberties as we feel we deserve, the lesser the world seems to become. Hasn't anyone noticed that things in the world are seemingly at an all time low?

You're right!:thumbsup:Let's bring back old testament biblical law!:blob1:

[strandinthewind]

^

Actually, a review ofnthe facts indicates things are at an all time low because for the past 8 years, bush and his cronies raped us and we, sadly, cannot have an abortion. We must go the distance and pray it works out.

[mylittledemon]

^

Actually, a review ofnthe facts indicates things are at an all time low because for the past 8 years, bush and his cronies raped us and we, sadly, cannot have an abortion. We must go the distance and pray it works out.

I love how the failures of President Clinton get repeatedly overlooked.

[gldstwmn]

Bet he had unprotected sex. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

As a proud member of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org), I can only laugh when politicians from the two major parties are caught up in scandals like this!

Because your party is the paragon of moral vituosity?

[gldstwmn]

Also, you motherfuking men can stay out of my uterus. Thanks. :wavey:

[carrie721]

Also, you motherfuking men can stay out of my uterus. Thanks. :wavey:

mine is invitation only.

[Moz]

"* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)"

What a dumbass. If the government used money to try and reduce teen pregnancy, maybe there wouldn't be so many minors trying to have abortions. :rolleyes:

[carrie721]

"* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)"

What a dumbass. If the government used money to try and reduce teen pregnancy, maybe there wouldn't be so many minors trying to have abortions. :rolleyes:

but that would be encouraging teenagers to have sex!

[David]

Also, you motherfuking men can stay out of my uterus. Thanks. :wavey:

I cracked up when I read this. Point taken.

But how can a State that can't even keep out of your wallet be expected to keep out of your uterus?

[nailatixela]

but that would be encouraging teenagers to have sex!

They don't need any encouragement. :lol:

PS: I'm with mark on the abortion/gay marriage issue. (except for the fact that I'm not gay) In my mind abortion is muder, and even if you personally do not believe in abortion I still think you should stand up for what you believe in. You personally may have not believed in slavery, but were not going to say anything if others wanted to have slaves. That's one comparison - and both sides of any issue should take a stand.

With gay marriage - that's a right that I don't think should be denied because there is nothing (in my mind) illegal about it. Except for the fact that it is in most states. :rolleyes: But the process of a gay marriage doesn't create any crimes. Every human life should be given a chance...I know I would not have wanted to be aborted even if I were to grow up in the hardest of situations. Every life deserves a chance to live. (which I guess is part of why I support gay marriage - the right to live a better life with someone. an aborted child never gets a chance to live with anyone)

That's just how I think about it in my mind - I guess I'm in an odd stance on these 2 issues though. I think I'll have to create a new party. :woohoo:

[David]

Well, unless you want a 25% literacy rate. :shrug:
If you define literacy in the silly way the schools do (that is, the ability to read practically all the letters & some words), then the country has a high literacy rate. But if you define literacy the way I & Richard Mitchell do (that is, the ability & the inclination to distinguish sense from nonsense, fact from opinion, reasoned inquiry from persuasion & cajolery, data from sales pitch, & metaphor from simile -- in short, the ability & the inclination to pay thoughtful attention in language, which is exactly what is not taught in public school), then the country's literacy rate is well below 25% already!

I'd like to see the Department of Ecudation ("Quality Ecudation Doesn't Come Cheap! ran the old motto) dismantled & left flapping in the breeze, like a scarecrow. Think of all the money we might save.

[Stew_Matthews]

PS: I'm with mark on the abortion/gay marriage issue. (except for the fact that I'm not gay) In my mind abortion is muder, and even if you personally do not believe in abortion I still think you should stand up for what you believe in. You personally may have not believed in slavery, but were not going to say anything if others wanted to have slaves. That's one comparison - and both sides of any issue should take a stand.

With gay marriage - that's a right that I don't think should be denied because there is nothing (in my mind) illegal about it. Except for the fact that it is in most states. :rolleyes: But the process of a gay marriage doesn't create any crimes. Every human life should be given a chance...I know I would not have wanted to be aborted even if I were to grow up in the hardest of situations. Every life deserves a chance to live. (which I guess is part of why I support gay marriage - the right to live a better life with someone. an aborted child never gets a chance to live with anyone)

That's just how I think about it in my mind - I guess I'm in an odd stance on these 2 issues though. I think I'll have to create a new party. :woohoo:


No, on reflection, I think a lot of people will recognise the points you make.

Aspects of the language used in this thread certainly offend me but on the principle of gay rights and marriage it is important that we see real equality in the US. As a European it is difficult to understand the way in which the more legal aspects and law get wrapped around gay issues in the US when elsewhere it is accepted as a basic human right that everyone gets equal treatment, equality and opportunity.

Unlike Strand, I don't think abortion is a variation on the same issue. I think it is important that women have a choice but the constant attempts to say that either pro or anti view is either morally, intellectually or in any other way superior, is unhelpful imo.

[Moz]

With gay marriage - that's a right that I don't think should be denied because there is nothing (in my mind) illegal about it. Except for the fact that it is in most states. :rolleyes: But the process of a gay marriage doesn't create any crimes. Every human life should be given a chance.

But people will be able to marry their dogs if gay marriage is legalized! It will be the downfall of society! The world will end!

[carrie721]

But people will be able to marry their dogs if gay marriage is legalized! It will be the downfall of society! The world will end!

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXPcBI4CJc8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EXPcBI4CJc8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>

[strandinthewind]

. . . Aspects of the language used in this thread certainly offend me . . .

Did I make you blush :wavey:


Unlike Strand, I don't think abortion is a variation on the same issue . . . .

Legally it is. Either you believe in the right to privacy or you do not. Both of these issues are grounded in that right. So, while on the surface they may seem different, to keep them or argue for them in the legal sense makes it impossible to separate them.

In the end, people just cannot abide other people not conforming to their set of values. People want to control other people in that manner. Until people can see past that, the right to privacy will be eschewed for this BS hypocritical pseudo religious fervor.

[LikeAWillow]

As a proud member of the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org), I can only laugh when politicians from the two major parties are caught up in scandals like this!

I'm torn on the Libertarian Party, but I have to admit, I'm not as informed on all their stances as I should be. I believe in small government, and I believe in the power of most markets to operate efficiently when left to their own devices, but I also believe that some markets fail, and that, say, in the case of an externality, it's the job of the government to attempt to internalize the externality as best as possible. Am I right in assuming that the libertarian stance disagrees?

I also love that the party stands in support of full free trade, but I think that free trade needs to be coupled with job training programs, job placement programs, and longer unemployment periods for those whose jobs were outsourced. Again, I'm just not sure if the libertarians agree with this idea, or if it would be viewed as too much government involvement? Can someone help me out on where the line is drawn?

[gldstwmn]

I cracked up when I read this. Point taken.

But how can a State that can't even keep out of your wallet be expected to keep out of your uterus?

Touche'. I can see that's what makes the Libertarians so popular, the notion people should mind their own damn business. I'm not against taxes. I think the system needs a complete overhaul. Oh and marijuana should be legalized and taxed accordingly. The proceeds should be used for health care and education. People get all up in arms over these pot dispenseries but really they are no different than a liquor store. And studies show that one can't become physically addicted to weed. Pot needs better lobbyists, I guess. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Aspects of the language used in this thread certainly offend me

Removed. Sorry.

EDITED TO ADD: Added back in when I realized Stew Matthews wasn't referring to me. I love to use my cuss words every now and then.

[gldstwmn]

But people will be able to marry their dogs if gay marriage is legalized!

Why not? They make wonderful companions.

[gldstwmn]

Did I make you blush :wavey:



Legally it is. Either you believe in the right to privacy or you do not. Both of these issues are grounded in that right. So, while on the surface they may seem different, to keep them or argue for them in the legal sense makes it impossible to separate them.

In the end, people just cannot abide other people not conforming to their set of values. People want to control other people in that manner. Until people can see past that, the right to privacy will be eschewed for this BS hypocritical pseudo religious fervor.

It's when religion enters the picture that the problems seem to start. The founders of this country certainly knew what they were talking about when they referred to a separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson was brilliant.

[gldstwmn]

mine is invitation only.

As is mine but they're always trying to get in there anyway.

[strandinthewind]

“Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.”

— U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.,

July 13, 2004

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Fukc that the hypocritical prig :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

“Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.”

— U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.,

July 13, 2004

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Fukc that the hypocritical prig :nod:

Would have been funny if his mistress got preggers.

The Libertarian party makes me a little sick and here's why. David Brudnoy once said that adults who had bad childhoods were basically throw-away people who were pretty useless and you can't expect them to be anything. He said something like this on his radio show. Now this was (RIP) his personal opinion but I can't help but extrapolate that much of the party might see it that way. It sounds to me like a party for the privileged who believe they deserve to have everything (entitled) and the scraps (underprivileged) shouldn't be helped because they are useless anyway. I think that's a crappy stance on your fellow man.

[Stew_Matthews]

Did I make you blush :wavey:


Oh no it was nothing to do with swearing etc - I don't much care about that.

[strandinthewind]

Oh no it was nothing to do with swearing etc - I don't much care about that.

Le Sigh - I just wanted to make your cheeks red.

Interestingly and back to the main topic, my spies tell me much more bad karma is headed Mr. Ensign's way. Oh well, you reap what you sow :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Would have been funny if his mistress got preggers.

The Libertarian party makes me a little sick and here's why. David Brudnoy once said that adults who had bad childhoods were basically throw-away people who were pretty useless and you can't expect them to be anything. He said something like this on his radio show. Now this was (RIP) his personal opinion but I can't help but extrapolate that much of the party might see it that way. It sounds to me like a party for the privileged who believe they deserve to have everything (entitled) and the scraps (underprivileged) shouldn't be helped because they are useless anyway. I think that's a crappy stance on your fellow man.

It does fort of come off that way, esp. when, in a true Lib. system, only the well off will have the power to get rights. In a way, it is sort of like Communism in that it is great on paper, but will never work in the real world because people are too greedy :shrug: That is why I say I am for less govt. in general, but I am also for a Fed. Govt. that guarantees rights for all. Imagine how much real work the govt.'s could get done if they just gave people basic rights currently demanded and moved on to relevant things like North Korea. But, there is FAR more money to be made demonizing people - so there you have it.

[SuzeQuze]

It does fort of come off that way, esp. when, in a true Lib. system, only the well off will have the power to get rights. In a way, it is sort of like Communism in that it is great on paper, but will never work in the real world because people are too greedy :shrug: That is why I say I am for less govt. in general, but I am also for a Fed. Govt. that guarantees rights for all. Imagine how much real work the govt.'s could get done if they just gave people basic rights currently demanded and moved on to relevant things like North Korea. But, there is FAR more money to be made demonizing people - so there you have it.

Seriously. Can we cut it with these bull**** distractions?

[strandinthewind]

^^

What I think is loopy is - Why wouldn't you want a right to privacy over your own life and body?

[David]

Oh and marijuana should be legalized and taxed accordingly. Legalization is the only moral position. What I choose to ingest or inhale is no one's bidness but mine. But why taxed? You want to see 14 million busybody bureaucrats performing even more ineptly & shiftlessly, & made even wealthier by the money you yourself earn? How about a system of taxes to reasonably, judiciously, and efficiently fulfill the social contract and provide a safety net for the downtrodden and disadvantaged?

The proceeds should be used for health care and education. Used how? And by whom? And to what end?

Those who are interested in liberty and morality might want to read any of the great tracts of Classical Liberalism, from Locke's Two Treatises of Government to the Hamilton/Madison/Jay Federalist Papers to Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

It's fertile soil for planting the seeds of discussion.

[LikeAWillow]

Those who are interested in liberty and morality might want to read any of the great tracts of Classical Liberalism, from Locke's Two Treatises of Government to the Hamilton/Madison/Jay Federalist Papers to Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.


Aaron Burr was such a b*stard.

I would add that getting farther in The Wealth of Nations then the invisible hand would also add to any discussion of the role of government in economics.

[LikeAWillow]

. But why taxed?

Because smoking imposes a negative externality on the public and taxing helps make the market efficient :)

[strandinthewind]

Because smoking imposes a negative externality on the public and taxing helps make the market efficient :)

It is a little acknowledged fact that many state govt.'s and the Fed. Govt. derive billions a year via direct and other taxes on the tobacco industry. It has been suggested that the Fed. could not operate without that tax. Ergo, cigs will never be banned.

As for the govt. involved in business. To some extent, business must be regulated to prevent theft. Theft comes at many levels including safety, which the govt. must also regulate. History has repeatedly taught us that the greed of men makes a truly free market impossible to sustain. I get the idea. But, drug companies need to be regulated to some extent. Ditto for the airlines, makers of automatic weaponry, etc. Do we really want hospitals and/or medical care essentially only for the rich (with the poor taking a scrap here and there), which is what will happen if history teaches us anything?

I suppose like in all things, the trick is to find a balance.

[strandinthewind]

Not only was he hypocritical and self-righteous scum, but she really was a whore :shrug:
________________________________________________________

Ensign helped mistress's husband get jobs

By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writer Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 29 mins ago

LAS VEGAS – Sen. John Ensign helped his mistress's husband get two jobs during the time the rising Republican senator acknowledges carrying on an extramarital affair, an Ensign spokesman said Thursday.

"Just as he has done for many other staff members, Senator Ensign made recommendation calls for Mr. Hampton," Ensign spokesman Tory Mazzola said in a statement. Mazzola was responding to questions about the employment of Doug Hampton, a former aide to the Nevada senator.

Ensign on Tuesday admitted having a nine-month affair with Doug Hampton's wife, Cindy, who also worked for the senator. Ensign's office has said that both Cindy and Doug Hampton left their jobs in May 2008, and the affair ended in August 2008.

In the months after leaving his post, Doug Hampton quickly landed two positions with companies connected to Ensign.

One, a consulting firm that ran Ensign's 2006 campaign, acknowledges the senator encouraged the company to hire Doug Hampton.

A Las-Vegas based airline whose executives have contributed money to the senator declined to comment on whether Ensign was involved in Doug Hampton's employment.

Doug Hampton's easy transition from the political to corporate worlds isn't unusual. It does, however, raise questions about to what extent Ensign used his influence to assist two former employees who could have done damage to his career.

Mazzola did not respond to requests for more detail on the senator's involvement.

A lawyer for the Hamptons declined to comment Thursday. The couple released a statement Wednesday criticizing Ensign's disclosure of the affair, saying they "did everything possible to keep this matter private."

Ensign's office disputed the account and said Doug Hampton had approached a television media organization.

On Thursday, Mike Slanker, a longtime Ensign campaign adviser, told The Associated Press that Ensign was "supportive" of plans to hire Doug Hampton through Slanker's government affairs firm, November Inc., in May 2008.

Slanker said he was not aware of Ensign's relationship with Cindy Hampton at the time. He said the senator did not pressure him to hire Doug Hampton.

"To be fair, (Ensign) was supportive, but there was no pressure," Slanker said.

Slanker said Doug Hampton worked for the company from May to August in 2008 and received some fees from a client in 2009. In the first four months of this year, Ensign paid the firm and its fundraising arm more than $52,000. Federal campaign records show Ensign made no payment to the firm from May 2008 to August 2008.

November Inc. issued a statement Thursday, saying, "No Ensign-related entity paid November Inc. for (Hampton's) services. Doug serviced new clients, but no existing clients of the firm ... he does not currently work for us, or have any affiliation with our company."

While at the firm, Doug Hampton secured a consulting contract with Allegiant Air, a small airline currently run by Las Vegas businessman Maurice Gallagher.

In August 2008, Allegiant Air hired Doug Hampton as the vice president for government affairs, according to Tyri Squyres, a company spokeswoman.

"He was hired based on his experience and credentials," she said. Squyres would not comment further on Hampton's employment and denied a request to interview Gallagher.

Gallagher has contributed to Democrats and Republican in Nevada. He and his wife have given more than $20,000 in political contributions to Ensign and his related committee.

Allegiant Air executives based in Las Vegas have paid $14,300 to Ensign's campaign committee and to his political action committee.

Doug and Cindy Hampton's son, Brandon, also works for the airline, Squyres confirmed. She would not say how he got the job in the company's call center.

Brandon Hampton also previously worked for Ensign, the former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Records show the committee made twice-monthly payments, generally $500 apiece, to Brandon Hampton. The payments began in March of last year and ended in August, when Ensign's office says the affair ended.

Federal records also show that around the time of the affair, Cindy Hampton, received a promotion and a pay raise at one political entity controlled by Ensign, as well as a pay raise at a second.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_re_us/us_ensign_affair

[strandinthewind]

Yet another right wing holier than thou lunatic who likes to wank to pics of underage children :eek: Wonder if any of it was little boys - what a pathetic individual, but, sadly, indicative if not dispositive of many of the far religious right who think there is something wrong with an America that tolerates deviants, which they themselves are.

__________________________________________________________

BI: Child Pornography Found on Alleged Museum Shooter's Computer

Thursday , June 18, 2009

AP
ADVERTISEMENT

WASHINGTON —

Child pornography was found on a computer belonging to the white supremacist charged with shooting and killing a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the FBI said in court documents.

Agents found the material on a desktop computer seized from the apartment in nearby Maryland where 88-year-old James von Brunn lived with his son and son's fiancee, FBI Special Agent Ronald Farnsworth said in an affidavit filed Wednesday to support a search warrant. Investigators searched the home last Thursday, taking more than 30 items, including ammunition, computers, thumb drives, CDs, memory cards, cell phones and videos.

Authorities will analyze who had access to the computer to determine whether the pornography was von Brunn's, or if it could have belonged to someone else, prosecutors said. No decisions on charges have been made.

The documents did not say what form the pornography was in, or how much of it was there.

In separate documents filed on Wednesday, the FBI said it found 35 rounds of .22-caliber ammunition in a search last Thursday of von Brunn's car, which was parked outside the Washington, D.C., museum during the shooting a day earlier.

Investigators said they also found a notebook in the car with handwritten notes saying, "The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."

Von Brunn faces murder charges in the death of Stephen T. Johns and remains hospitalized after being hit in the face by guards who returned fire.

The FBI has said he is likely to survive. A hearing is set for Monday for an update on his condition. No date has been set for von Brunn's initial court appearance.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,527252,00.html

[Moz]

Why not? They make wonderful companions.

Dogs are man's best friend after all. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Legalization is the only moral position. What I choose to ingest or inhale is no one's bidness but mine. But why taxed? You want to see 14 million busybody bureaucrats performing even more ineptly & shiftlessly, & made even wealthier by the money you yourself earn? How about a system of taxes to reasonably, judiciously, and efficiently fulfill the social contract and provide a safety net for the downtrodden and disadvantaged?.

Sure.


Used how? And by whom? And to what end?
Public education is a mess (with some exceptions) in this country right now. I'm sure the Obama administration could find someone more than qualified to come up with a plan on how the tax revenue could be applied to create better school systems. The cookie cutter approach ain't cutting it.
It is also said we have the best health care in the world. Bull****. My personal experience of late has been that you have to be proactive in your care otherwise it is mediocre at best. Hospital staff seems to be completely over worked. I broke my finger a couple of weeks ago and the PA in the emergency room (I never even saw a doctor) basically told me my finger wasn't broken before they x-rayed it. He then proceeded to give me a splint akin to a popsicle stick and some tape, told me to ice it, go home and cry about it and take some Advil. WTF? Post x-ray he returned to tell me that much to his surprise my finger was broken (no ****?). But hey, at least they got me "in and out" fast (his words, not mine). The follow up care has been okay but not stellar. They didn't x ray because the doc said they didn't want to expose me to more radiation.: shrug: I will have an x ray sometime next week at my next appointment. Meanwhile, someone else from the same office has been calling me to schedule physical therapy but I don't really understand that when I haven't even had a new x ray to see what is healed. Also, there is a bump on the finger next to the broken one which has been addressed by no one yet. Perhaps it's just me but this doesn't seem like the gold standard of care.


Those who are interested in liberty and morality might want to read any of the great tracts of Classical Liberalism, from Locke's Two Treatises of Government to the Hamilton/Madison/Jay Federalist Papers to Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

It's fertile soil for planting the seeds of discussion.

Thanks for the rec. I have a rare case of insomnia this evening and I'm sure any one of those would put me right out. I should probably start with the Magna Carta.
Just kidding. Sort of.

[David]

Sure.Chris, I'm gonna bop you one!!

Public education is a mess (with some exceptions) in this country right now. I'm sure the Obama administration could find someone more than qualified to come up with a plan on how the tax revenue could be applied to create better school systems. The cookie cutter approach ain't cutting it.The best education -- the only education, in fact -- requires reading books and thinking about what you've read.

Financially, it costs practically nothing! It certainly doesn't cost the billions spent on schooling infrastructure, administration, policymaking, childcare, social engineering, hardware & software, travel, R&D, teacher unions, public relations, & all the other crap the DoE buys.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Financially, it costs practically nothing! It certainly doesn't cost the billions spent on schooling infrastructure, administration, policymaking, childcare, social engineering, hardware & software, travel, R&D, teacher unions, public relations, & all the other crap the DoE buys.

It's a fine line though. In Utopia, education is free and great. However, in places like the poorer parts of the inner cities, that goal mostly in unobtainable because the many parents (if one or both are still around) are likely working two jobs and/or are drug addicts or in jail for some other crime. That is a very sad statistic, but it is a reality. So, what happens to these kids if the state does not take care of them and expose them to some kind og reading and thought? I think that if they survive, then they will have even less of a chance than they have now to better themselves.

But, I do agree with you on the larger point that the education system in the US needs a vast overhaul and that gearing it toward literacy and thought provoking discussion is the way to go.

[David]

It's a fine line though. In Utopia, education is free and great. Education is always free & great. Schooling always costs money. Education is not synonymous with schooling.

However, in places like the poorer parts of the inner cities, that goal mostly in unobtainable because the many parents (if one or both are still around) are likely working two jobs and/or are drug addicts or in jail for some other crime. That is a very sad statistic, but it is a reality. So, what happens to these kids if the state does not take care of them and expose them to some kind og reading and thought? What happens to them now?

But, I do agree with you on the larger point that the education system in the US needs a vast overhaul Public schooling doesn't need an overhaul -- it has been overhauled hundreds of times in a thousand different ways since the 1960s. What it needs is dismantling altogether. It is a byzantine bureaucracy that sucks up more & more money every year (at the insistence of the very people who fail year after year to teach reading, writing, & ciphering to millions), & turns out failed "experiments" in social engineering & groupthink.

Public schooling is the Wall. Education is the chink in the wall. It is a fierce beast broken into the fold, as Richard Mitchell once described it. Education takes hold in a person's mind or doesn't take hold, irrespective of what public schools do or don't do.

and that gearing it toward literacy and thought provoking discussion is the way to go.You'll be right back to Square 1 if you let the silly school bureaucrats define "literacy" for you.

discussion? Education needs no such discussion (nothing more than a rap session) to take hold, other than the discussion inside a human being's own mind.

Education doesn't occur when you look down at the page in the book. It occurs when you look up immediately afterward.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Well, the inner city kids (and I submit the poor minorities in rural areas) get a public education, which, in many areas is not enough. In the end, racism cannot be overcome if we do not educate/school/whatever the poor blacks and hispanics. Interestingly, the Asians, for the most part, are more go getters than the former. Who knows why.

In the end, if you get rid of public education/schools/whatever - only the well off are going to get an education/school/whatever.

In a perfect world - the parents would supplement the inadequacy of the public schools (really all schools) -- and many of them do. However, many do not.

But, how would you structure the school/education systems?

I would make state colleges free for those who could not afford them - interestingly, in GA, they are for GA kids who maintain a B or better average. I would then make the school day last longer. Then, the curriculum would vastly change in the ways discussed above. But, I would not get rid of the entire system.