It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You'd be interested to see where you said that? When you said: The idea that you think education should be completely free and government funded shows you to be the most anti-american person I've encountered in a while.
As for your sudden turn that STATE TAXES for education is fine, that completely goes against your previous quote: The idea that you think education should be completely free and government funded shows you to be the most anti-american person I've encountered in a while.
Do you mean that the federal government has a right to control anything that impacts the economy? I hope not, because everything can be said to impact the economy. That level of government control does scare me.
As long as education impacts on the economy then the federal government has a right to control it.
I would hope that if it was unconstitutional, the Supremes would have caught it. I'm content to try for state level control of education for now. If that ever happens, then I might research into constitutionality issues, but I suspect I'd be happy to have the states continue to fund it. I think I'd like to see vouchers used, but that would be a state decision, too.
The core of my issue is the lie being told (and Paul told it too) that funding education through taxes, in any way, is unconstitutional/anti-American.
As long as education impacts on the economy then the federal government has a right to control it
What I have said is, and has been, accepted by both parties, and the supreme court, for literally almost 150 years.
folks that don't understand the history of the constitution and how it's ACTUALLY been interpreted, by ACTUAL supreme court justices, by legal scholars, and hundreds of politicians.
And none of this changes the fact that I've repeatedly shown your statements to be false and that you've chosen to just ignore that and instead havejust chosen to, big big surprise, deflect.
You have no real facts here, just fringe opinions. It's hard to justify this fringe opinion as fact, especially when you know so little about the US Constitution.
Here's the deal, you go figure it out. Figure out how the Federal government has the authority. Just figure it out.
but of course you don't acknowledge the direct quotes I've repeatedly posted, your quotes
which show both your ever decreasing logic and ignorance
I love, as in I find it very entertainig, that you claim that consistant interpretation of one aspect of the constitution, is somehow a corruption of the constitution.
Ignorance is bliss, unless you're trying to debate facts.
Right, so again you have just fallen back on your ideology. Your gonna need to out grow that, if you ever want to have substantive discussions. Good luck with pushing your ridiculous ideology.
Luckily for America, your candidate of choice will fail miserably, due almost entirely to his unpopularity.
Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
If he does as you suggest it will slander his image of being an honest and fair candidate; it is expected of vermin like Gingrich and Romney to bicker over petty issues, and it is expected of Santorum to ramble on and on about nonsense which he has no knowledge of whenever he gets a chance to speak.
I think if Paul were to start taking a more aggressive and belligerent stance towards other candidates he would lose much support. He is the adult of the group; why would he start acting like a child?
Paul is known for his consistency; it is unlike him to act in a way that doesn't reflect his true self, even if it means gaining the attention of a few million idiots.
Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
For realz, dude.. Santorum voted for the Patriot Act, the expansion of Medicare, and raising the debt ceiling by TRILLIONS of dollars.. I just threw up in my mouth a little...