Educate Ben about black women

[Lonestar]

We don't have a different constitution. It changes over time, which is exactly what the people who wrote it intended, seeing how they explicitly included a process for adding to it. Income tax is constitutional, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact, and if you don't like that you free to try to persuade people that the constitution needs to be amended get rid of the income tax.

BK doesn't understand the term "living document" very well.

[Ben Kenobi]

I never said that all amendments are good. Where did you read that?

Then why does opposition to the 16th imply opposition to the 13th and 14th and 19th?

[Lonestar]

BTW, if we're playing with words, Christianity is far more akin to slavery than income tax.

WRONG


Yahweh loves you, that's why when he puts a gun to your head and screams "you better brown nose or I'll give you eternal damnation" you're in the wrong, not him. Assuming Yahweh exists.

[giblets]

You can't argue for a living tree and argue in favour of the status quo. Those are diametrically opposed positions. You can argue in favour for reform of the constitution and reform of the living tree, but with the understanding that you will 'improve' the constitution. So you could argue that the current constitution was the best, but only by arguing that every amendment makes the constitution better.

What? I'm arguing that things that are explicitly sanctioned by the constitution are certainly constitutional. I'm not arguing that a 'living tree' is good or bad, I'm pointing out that a 'living tree' is a matter of fact because the people who wrote the constitution deliberately included a process for adding amendments and those amendments are just as much a part of the constitution as the original text.

[giblets]

Then why does opposition to the 16th imply opposition to the 13th and 14th and 19th?

Instead of criticizing the 16th amendment, you've decided to argue that amendments are somehow not a part of the constitution. If you were really think this then you're also opposed to the 13th amendment, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

You're dodging the question possibly because you know how stupid it sounds to go "wa wa II have no money in my home town, already live in a first world country, therefore I should EMIGRATE instead of moving to another town within the country".

How am I dodging the question? Work in my field is in TX, so I go to TX. Makes perfect sense to me.

So, (1) yes there is a tuition, and I note that you said it wasn't waived, but "something was worked out".

I'm not privy to those discussions. Yes, there's a tuition. The tuition is pretty reasonable as far as private schools go. As a private institution they are free to set their compensation as they see fit. My job is to work with the kids who are in front of me and do the best job I can.

you even admit that tuition isn't waived?

I'm not going to comment on conversations and decisions to which I'm not privy. It wouldn't be right. All I know is that something gets worked out, the kids show up and I teach them. It's not my job to worry about what tuition they are charged for attending.

pretend that the free market equals an egalitarian society.

Damn straight. We kick public school butt.

[Ben Kenobi]

Instead of criticizing the 16th amendment, you've decided to argue that amendments are somehow not a part of the constitution. If you were really think this then you're also opposed to the 13th amendment, right?

A constitutional government would limit itself to spending in the areas in which they have authority to spend. This government at present overspends and overtaxes. I see nothing to argue that the 16th is backed by anything in the original document. This is not so with the 13th, 14th and the 19th, all of which argue that natural rights are not limited by colour, creed or sex. That you do find in the original constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christianity is far more akin to slavery than income tax. They even have a Master they serve.

Do Christian thugs arrest me and throw me in jail for failing to tithe? Funny that. We have a master, yes, but we are free to serve him.

[Lonestar]

How am I dodging the question? Work in my field is in TX, so I go to TX. Makes perfect sense to me.

You're a school teacher, you could go literally anywhere for a "job in your field".

I'm not privy to those discussions. Yes, there's a tuition. The tuition is pretty reasonable as far as private schools go. As a private institution they are free to set their compensation as they see fit. My job is to work with the kids who are in front of me and do the best job I can.

I'm not going to comment on conversations and decisions to which I'm not privy. It wouldn't be right. All I know is that something gets worked out, the kids show up and I teach them. It's not my job to worry about what tuition they are charged for attending.

So in other words, my initial statement about what socio-economic groups you interact with is correct? There is in fact a pay wall that limits access to the institution?

Damn straight. We kick public school butt.

I bet. It's real easy to make that claim when you can shift all the wheat form the chaff before hand.

Do Christian thugs arrest me and throw me in jail for failing to tithe? Funny that. We have a master, yes, but we are free to serve him.

No, the ideology is just that you will go to hell for ever if you don't brownnose enough.

[giblets]

A constitutional government would limit itself to spending in the areas in which they have authority to spend. This government at present overspends and overtaxes. I see nothing to argue that the 16th is backed by anything in the original document. This is not so with the 13th, 14th and the 19th, all of which argue that natural rights are not limited by colour, creed or sex. That you do find in the original constitution.

It's backed by the part of the document that gives the public the authority to amend the constitution through the amendment process. The income tax certainly has been used in constitutional ways. For example, high income tax rates were established during WWI and WWII for the purpose of raising revenue national defense, which is obviously a constitutional use of taxes.

I would like for you to point out where the original text of the constitution discusses "natural rights" and claims they are not limited by color, creed or sex. The Bill of Rights does claim people have certain rights, but the Bill of Rights is a set of... amendments.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're a school teacher, you could go literally anywhere for a "job in your field".

TX is starving for them, unlike many other areas in Canada. My hometown just shut down 4 schools, even the teachers who were teaching can't find work, let alone someone new.

So in other words, my initial statement about what socio-economic groups you interact with is correct? There is in fact a pay wall that limits access to the institution?

Not at all. This is TX, remember. I have students from all backgrounds in my class. As for the pay wall, again, I'm not going to comment on the arrangements that they make for parents who want to have their kids taught at the schools.

Perhaps the diocese sponsors them, I don't know. It would be within their means to do so.

It's real easy to make that claim when you can shift all the wheat form the chaff before hand.

So you admit that private schools do a better job of educating their kids. Thank you

No, the ideology is just that you will go to hell for ever if you don't brownnose enough.

Why would you want to go to Christian heaven if you weren't a Christian?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's backed by the part of the document that gives the public the authority to amend the constitution through the amendment process. The income tax certainly has been used in constitutional ways. For example, high income tax rates were established during WWI and WWII for the purpose of raising revenue national defense, which is obviously a constitutional use of taxes.

Yes, but it was implemented in 1913. Before the war started. So it's unconstitutional, in the sense that it was enacted to fund government spending outside of their authority. That it could be used to fund constitutional things is irrelevant.

Your argument would be stronger if it were enacted in 1917, but then the question that would come up, why is it effective in peacetime? It's used in war and in peace, so therefore, arguing that it has anything at all to do with funding the world wars is completely false,

I would like for you to point out where the original text of the constitution discusses "natural rights" and claims they are not limited by color, creed or sex. The Bill of Rights does claim people have certain rights, but the Bill of Rights is a set of... amendments.

The Declaration says just that and the authors of the Constitution argue that the slavery provisions were temporary.

[Asher]

Do Christian thugs arrest me and throw me in jail for failing to tithe? Funny that. We have a master, yes, but we are free to serve him.

Christian thugs have done worse. They've killed millions for failing to be Christian.

[Lonestar]

TX is starving for them, unlike many other areas in Canada. My hometown just shut down 4 schools, even the teachers who were teaching can't find work, let alone someone new.

Really? Would you mind linking me to a study that says Texas has a huge demand on school teachers above and beyond the other 49 States, or Canada?

Not at all. This is TX, remember. I have students from all backgrounds in my class. As for the pay wall, again, I'm not going to comment on the arrangements that they make for parents who want to have their kids taught at the schools.

Perhaps the diocese sponsors them, I don't know. It would be within their means to do so.

Would you agree that there ARE families who go to the Principal, explain that they can't pay anything, and are turned away? Or are you going to play the "I don't know, I'm not involved in those decisions" card?

So you admit that private schools do a better job of educating their kids. Thank you

Nope, I didn't. The phrase about leading a horse to water comes to mind, but either you are very, very stupid, or you are being intentionally obtuse.

My speculation is that the school will exam the school records of potential students, and will only waive tuition or costs if the student has a very good school record(in terms of grades). By turning away the underachievers(most of whom, coincidentally, fall into certain socio-economic groups) the school can then go "look at us! We have a MUCH better record than those Public schools! If you have the money, you should totally give it to us and enroll your kids here!"

Why would you want to go to Christian heaven if you weren't a Christian?

If God exists, and it's Yahweh, and you are presented with two options (get on your knees and really lick boot, or spend all eternity suffering) which are you going to choose?

"I'll take eternal pit of fire for $500 Alex."

Of course, Christians avoid acknowledging that a omniscient and omnipotent being that presents these two choices is, in fact, the most immoral and sadistic ******* ever. Because it isn't a choice. It's like a abusive boyfriend threatening to blow his girlfriends brains out if she doesn't give him a BJ, and when she refuses it becomes the fault of the girlfriend that she died, not the guy pulling the trigger.

[giblets]

Yes, but it was implemented in 1913. Before the war started. So it's unconstitutional, in the sense that it was enacted to fund government spending outside of their authority. That it could be used to fund constitutional things is irrelevant.

Your argument would be stronger if it were enacted in 1917, but then the question that would come up, why is it effective in peacetime? It's used in war and in peace, so therefore, arguing that it has anything at all to do with funding the world wars is completely false,

Amendments are constitutional if they are ratified according to the process established by the original text of the constitution. That's it. You don't get to make up your own rules for how the amendment process works. Income tax is constitutional, and if some forms of spending are unconstitutional, it's the spending that's unconstitutional and not the taxes. If the federal government spent money collected through tariffs in an unconstitutional way, it wouldn't make tariffs unconstitutional.

The Declaration says just that and the authors of the Constitution argue that the slavery provisions were temporary.

Are you talking about the declaration of independence? It's not part of the constitution. Seriously, I hope you're not teaching American history. For the sake of the kids. There is nothing in the original text of the constitution that refers to natural rights that are restricted by color, creed, or sex. Sorry.