Obama Holding Live Gun Control Town Hall On CNN This Week

[Ubiquitous]

On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
CNN with Anderson Cooper.

The town hall will take place three days after Obama meets with
Attorney General Loretta Lynch to finalize executive gun controls which
are expected to be announced in the coming days.

According to CNN, the Obama town hall will feature gun control
commentary from President Obama as well as “questions from the audience
on the issue” of gun control. The town hall comes one day before “the
fifth anniversary…of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
(D-Arizona),” who was shot by Jared Loughner after Loughner passed a
background check for his gun, then used that gun to kill six and wound
13 others.

Obama’s pending executive gun controls are expected to expand
background checks to cover private gun sellers and to place more
reporting requirements on federally licensed gun dealers. Neither of
these actions would have prevented Giffords’ attacker from acquiring
his gun or carrying out his attack.

[CNN is Obama's Pravda]

--
Cosby's problem is that he doesn't have a Hillary to cover for him and
discredit all those women.

[BTR1701]

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on

Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while surrounded
by men with guns to keep him safe.

[FPP]

Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many others
before him.

So, yeah... business as usual.
--
"Listen, I'm a politician... which means that I'm a cheat and a liar,
and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops." -Hunt
for Red October

[Peter Franks]

On 1/5/2016 2:02 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> CNN with Anderson Cooper.
>
> The town hall will take place three days after Obama meets with
> Attorney General Loretta Lynch to finalize executive gun controls which
> are expected to be announced in the coming days.
>
> According to CNN, the Obama town hall will feature gun control
> commentary from President Obama as well as “questions from the audience
> on the issue” of gun control. The town hall comes one day before “the
> fifth anniversary…of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
> (D-Arizona),” who was shot by Jared Loughner after Loughner passed a
> background check for his gun, then used that gun to kill six and wound
> 13 others.
>
> Obama’s pending executive gun controls are expected to expand
> background checks to cover private gun sellers and to place more
> reporting requirements on federally licensed gun dealers. Neither of
> these actions would have prevented Giffords’ attacker from acquiring
> his gun or carrying out his attack.

So then what is the point?

Oh, right -- there is no point. Just more hot air from our
constitutional scholar first black president that was to be the great
uniter.

He isn't black.

He isn't a constitutional scholar.

He didn't unite anything.

He is a disgrace and an abysmal failure. Problem is that he is just
another fool in what appears to be a permanent trend.

Limiting guns to the law abiding citizen does what? It infringes or
eliminates the RIGHTS of the LAW ABIDING.

What does it do for the law breaker? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So,
effectually these laws are prejudicial toward the law abiding and
ineffectual against the law breaker. What is Nobama trying to foster
here? Elimination of the law abiding? Judging from his home town, I'd
say yes.

Instead of infringing on the rights of the law abiding, why doesn't he
affect the forfeiture of the rights of the law breaker? Someone that
breaks the law, willfully and forcefully violating the rights of another
person, forfeits his own rights. We, as a civil society, temper that
forfeiture for the benefit of the law breaker and because of compassion.
Let's instead diminish the compassion and become harsher in the
forfeiture -- let's say, for starters, that anyone properly convicted of
first degree murder is summarily executed, including all those that have
been previously convicted. It would clean up the prisons, rid society
of the scum of the earth, and send a message: violate the rights of
another, one-way-ticket to the chair.

That is what a real president would advocate for in our society where
lawlessness runs rampant and violence is perpetrated daily against the
law abiding.

It is time to terminate the rights of the law breaker, and strengthen
the rights of the law abiding.

So, ask yourself this: where do you stand - do you seek to infringe the
rights of the law abiding for the benefit of the law breaker? Or do you
seek to strengthen the rights of the law abiding and do away with the
law breaker?

I stand firmly with the latter.

[>>>Ashton Crusher]

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 14:25:55 -0600, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

+1 ya beat me to it.

[FPP]

Do you just string words together?

How does requiring somebody selling guns to have a license infringe on
my owning one?

How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy
one?

> Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the
> University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a
> constitutional law professor,"
>
> From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama
> served as a professor in the Law School.

How the fuck does that not make him a Constitutional scholar?

You're very outraged... but you're not very bright, are you?

What law abiding citizen will be deprived of the right to own a firearm?

Love to hear your answer...

[FPP]

This is something brand new only if you were born yesterday.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6hjug$v7s$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-05 15:25:55 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> >
> > Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
> > surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>
> Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many others
> before him.

Except they were not all trying to limit everyone else's gun rights.

And the ones who were... were equally hypocritical.

[FPP]

If you think he's trying to limit everybody's gun rights, you didn't
listen to what he said.

All he seems to have done is enforce the laws that are already on the books.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6i50v$cmm$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-01-05 21:46:47 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n6hjug$v7s$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-01-05 15:25:55 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
> >>
> >>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall on
> >>>
> >>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
> >>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
> >>
> >> Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many others
> >> before him.
> >
> > Except they were not all trying to limit everyone else's gun rights.
> >
> > And the ones who were... were equally hypocritical.
>
> If you think he's trying to limit everybody's gun rights, you didn't
> listen to what he said.
>
> All he seems to have done is enforce the laws that are already on the
> books.

Which makes one wonder why he bothered with the whole song and dance in
the first place, especially considering every time he does this sort of
thing the only measurable result is that gun sales across the nation
skyrocket.

If one didn't know better, one might suspect he was actually working
*for* the gun manufacturers.

[FPP]

It sure wasn't politics. Hillary wants to let sleeping dogs lie.

I just think the whole lame duck charge sticks in his craw, and it's
moved him to do more than he might have, otherwise.
--
"Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil." - Roosevelt

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ht3d$qtk$1...@dont-email.me:

> How does requiring somebody selling guns to have a license infringe on
> my owning one?

If you owned one, how would you sell it without a license?

> How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
> purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy
> one?

How do you enforce it?

[PaxPerPoten]

Could it be that he, Soros and Ayres want a civil war in America?


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[FPP]

Could be you're an idiot...

No... you're definitely an idiot.
--
I was going to buy a copy of The Power Of Positive Thinking, and then I
thought: "What the hell good would that do?"

[trotsky]

And your criticism is what, exactly?

[Unknown]

BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:

One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the Secret
Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

"Inside every old person is a young person
wondering what the hell happened!"

Terry Pratchett in The Times/UK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6i50v$cmm$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-05 21:46:47 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n6hjug$v7s$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-01-05 15:25:55 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town
>>>>> hall on
>>>>
>>>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
>>>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>>
>>> Just like many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many
>>> others before him.
>>
>> Except they were not all trying to limit everyone else's gun rights.
>>
>> And the ones who were... were equally hypocritical.
>
> If you think he's trying to limit everybody's gun rights, you didn't
> listen to what he said.
>
> All he seems to have done is enforce the laws that are already on the
> books.

The definition of a dealer is not on the books other than a vague "in the
business". I believe it should have been.

Expanded background checks are not on the books. They won't work without
registration ..... which is not on the books.

Expansion on mental health is an issue that should been looked at very
closely a long time ago.

Enhancement of data entry into NICS should have been done a long time
ago.

Other things that should have been looked into a long time are:

Education

Job opportunity

Gang culture

Drug culture

You know the king of things that fester under liberal leadership. How
long has Chicago been a Democrat stronghold? Or Baltimore or Detroit,
New Jersey, New York, LA, Miami, etc...

[Unknown]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
news:atropos-BB0E02...@news.giganews.com:

Yep, because he ends up scaring common citizens.

> If one didn't know better, one might suspect he was actually working
> *for* the gun manufacturers.

One would think he might pay more attention to ISIS or gangs.

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ht3d$qtk$1...@dont-email.me:

Under today's methodology, it doesn't. However, a universal background
check does. It is purely on the honor system unless he also gets
registration.

>> Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the
>> University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a
>> constitutional law professor,"
>>
>> From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama
>> served as a professor in the Law School.
>
> How the fuck does that not make him a Constitutional scholar?
>
> You're very outraged... but you're not very bright, are you?
>
> What law abiding citizen will be deprived of the right to own a
firearm?
>
> Love to hear your answer...

If they institute the "no fly" list as one of the criteria, there is no
due process or, in some cases, sanity applied to it. How did Ted Kennedy
get on it? Bureaucratic error. Ergo, due to a check mark in the wrong
place and no one thinking about it, Kennedy lost his right to own a
firearm.

The government has a very pisspoor record when doing stuff like that.
For example from 2006 - 2010 there were 34,303,069 appplications for the
purchase of a firearm. Of these:

470,483 were denied
75,083 were appealed
24,970 were reversed

377,283 were referred to ATF operations under Brady
15,757 were overturned
818 were referred for federal prosecution
296 of those were declined by US Attorney's office

Result

209 Guilty pleas or verdicts.

Kinda gives one an idea of the accuracy of the list. ;)

209 guilty out of 470 thousand denials and over 34 million applications
over a 5 year time span. Imagine if that number also included those on
the "no fly" list or all purchasers of firearms were universally checked.
Why it might even rise to 225. ;)

[Bill Steele]

On 1/6/16 12:27 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
>>purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy
>>one?

That's not the issue. What matters is that background checks deter some
people from buying guns and reduce gun dealers' and manufacturers'
profits. At gun shows they slow down sales. Can't afford to give the
customer time to think about how much he's spending.

[Peter Franks]

Do I not have the right to sell guns? Why license? Dealers are already
licensed.

> How does having a background check to eliminate those legally unable to
> purchase a gun infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to buy one?

Background checks cost $$. That infringes on my capabilities to
purchase, it most definitely infringes my right.

Make background checks free, and let's talk. Since you can't make it
free, make the anti-gun crowd pay for them.

>> Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the
>> University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a
>> constitutional law professor,"
>>
>> From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama
>> served as a professor in the Law School.
>
> How the fuck does that not make him a Constitutional scholar?

Please clean up your language when addressing me, I do not appreciate
vulgarity.

He does not follow the Constitution. He is either ignorant of the
Constitution, or he deliberately doesn't practice it -- either way
disqualifies him from being a scholar.

> You're very outraged... but you're not very bright, are you?
>
> What law abiding citizen will be deprived of the right to own a firearm?
>
> Love to hear your answer...

From his January 2013 Gun Proposal: Bans military-style assault
weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

That is an outright deprivation of the right to own.

[FPP]

You really haven't been paying attention for the last 7 years, have you?

Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?

Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
affordable lately?

--
"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience." -Twain

[FPP]

On 2016-01-06 12:01:59 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:

> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:
>
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall
>>> on
>>
>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>
>
> One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
> applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the Secret
> Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.

I'm pretty sure they do background checks on the SS already... and I
don't think they need to buy their guns off the internet, or at gun
shows.

But if any of those groups you mentioned want to purchase a gun for
their personal use - they, yeah, they DO apply to them. What would
make you think they woudn't?

You almost sound like you WANT there to be a big outrage here... and
are a bit sad that one isn't there for you to get outraged over.
--
"The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get
worse every time Congress meets." - Will Rogers

[FPP]

Which the Supreme Court has seen fit to allow. SCOTUS doesn't agree
that you should be able to own everything and anything you want just
because you want it.

> On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion
> Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured
> by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep
> and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
> whatever purpose.”
>
> “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
> prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
> ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
> such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
> and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Like I said... you are very outraged, but not very bright.

Whether you judge Obama ignorant, or intolerant of the Constitution
does not change the fact that he is a Constitutional Scholar, and
teaches Constitutional Law. That is borne out by the facts... why is
why I say you're not very bright.

Civil enough for you?
--

[BTR1701]

In article <n6k65a$fhp$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-06 12:01:59 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:
>
> > BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> > news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:
> >
> >> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall
> >>> on
> >>
> >> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
> >> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.

> > One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
> > applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the Secret
> > Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.
>
> I'm pretty sure they do background checks on the SS already... and I
> don't think they need to buy their guns off the internet, or at gun
> shows.
>
> But if any of those groups you mentioned want to purchase a gun for
> their personal use - they, yeah, they DO apply to them. What would
> make you think they woudn't?

Umm... the fact that (as you yourself pointed out) they've all *already*
undergone a background check that makes the one Joe Citizen takes to buy
a gun seem trivial in comparison. If, for example, an FBI agent shows
his credentials to a FFL, that should be prima facie evidence that she's
passed all the required screening and is more than qualified to purchase
a firearm without having to do it all (and pay for it all) again.

[FPP]

And I'm sure that nothing ever happens that would affect that in
between the time the credential was given, and the gun was purchased.
Because all life just freezes when you receive a credential.

My wife teaches... and even she has to go through a BCI check periodically.
--
It's 99% of politicians that give the rest a bad name.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6ko1d$3m3$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

You don't think FBI and Secret Service, etc. undergo periodic
re-investigation for just that reason? How naive are you?

[Unknown]

Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote in news:1padnYb9h97r-RDLnZ2dnUU7-
cmd...@earthlink.com:

IOW, you are trying out for twit of the month. ;)

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k5q8$e9d$1...@dont-email.me:

Why limit it to 7 years? Chicago has been a Democrat stronghold for
decades.

> Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?

That's the point. We need to create more jobs.

> Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
> affordable lately?

Hasn't happened has it.. Besides there are lots of jobs out there that
do not require a degree. In fact many of them cannot be exported and
will produce a six figure income.

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k65a$fhp$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-06 12:01:59 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> said:
>
>> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:eoWdnaIInLVOuxHL...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On January 7 President Obama will hold a live gun control town hall
>>>> on
>>>
>>> Obama will take vetted questions from a pre-screened crowd while
>>> surrounded by men with guns to keep him safe.
>>>
>>
>> One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
>> applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the
>> Secret Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.
>
> I'm pretty sure they do background checks on the SS already... and I
> don't think they need to buy their guns off the internet, or at gun
> shows.

You addressed one thing. There were several up there.

> But if any of those groups you mentioned want to purchase a gun for
> their personal use - they, yeah, they DO apply to them.

No, they do not. A background check is often not needed to purchase from
a dealer if you are military or in law enforcement. Or if you have a CCW
or an FOID, or a permit to purchase.

What would
> make you think they woudn't?
>
> You almost sound like you WANT there to be a big outrage here... and
> are a bit sad that one isn't there for you to get outraged over.

If you read my post, you would have noticed that I agreed with most of
what he was trying to do.

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ko1d$3m3$1...@dont-email.me:

OUt of all the stuff I agreed with you decided to pick one (and you are
wrong on it) and act as if that was the only one I responded to.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/7/16 1:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k5q8$e9d$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>

>> Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?
>
> That's the point. We need to create more jobs.
>
>> Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
>> affordable lately?
>
> Hasn't happened has it.. Besides there are lots of jobs out there that
> do not require a degree. In fact many of them cannot be exported and
> will produce a six figure income.
>

If you have the degree, that makes a much wider range of six figure jobs
accessible.

We don't make college more affordable by underpaying teachers.

[Unknown]

Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote in news:m8udnTM80cYgJBPLnZ2dnUU7-
c2d...@earthlink.com:

However, there are still lots of jobs out there that don't require a
degree, cannot be exported, and only need some training.

> We don't make college more affordable by underpaying teachers.

Who is claiming that we should?

[Bill Steele]

>> One of the first things noticed in his gun control is that NONE of it
>> >>applies to the military, law enforcement or armed groups like the
>> >>Secret Service who will have the job of protecting his ass for life.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure they do background checks on the SS already... and I
>>don't think they need to buy their guns off the internet, or at gun
>>shows.

So if guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Spunds
liken a good argument for psychological testing of all government
workers -- not to mention candidates for office.

[Unknown]

Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote in news:8K2dnUojZP3OJhPLnZ2dnUU7-
Wed...@earthlink.com:

Sounds like an extreme infringement on the 2A.

[Just Wondering]

College isn't for everyone. It's not supposed to be. We don't make
college more affordable by admitting people who shouldn't be there in
the first place.

[Wayne]

"Just Wondering" wrote in message news:%EBjy.151155$qz7.1...@fx01.iad...

On 1/7/2016 12:17 PM, Bill Steele wrote:
> On 1/7/16 1:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k5q8$e9d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>> Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?
>>
>> That's the point. We need to create more jobs.
>>
>>> Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
>>> affordable lately?
>>
>> Hasn't happened has it.. Besides there are lots of jobs out there that
>> do not require a degree. In fact many of them cannot be exported and
>> will produce a six figure income.
>>
>
> If you have the degree, that makes a much wider range of six figure jobs
> accessible.
>
> We don't make college more affordable by underpaying teachers.
>

# College isn't for everyone. It's not supposed to be. We don't make
# college more affordable by admitting people who shouldn't be there in
# the first place.

Correct. There are plenty of good jobs that don't require college. OJT or
trade schools can pay off big.

But, there seems to be an attitude that life consists of finishing high
school, running up student "permadebt", and sponging off your parents until
your social studies degree pays off with one of those $100,000/ year jobs.

And the government is encouraging that thinking.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/7/2016 3:40 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message news:%EBjy.151155$qz7.1...@fx01.iad...
>
> On 1/7/2016 12:17 PM, Bill Steele wrote:
>> On 1/7/16 1:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6k5q8$e9d$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Job opportunity? Checked the unemployment rate lately?
>>>
>>> That's the point. We need to create more jobs.
>>>
>>>> Education? Checked the proposals to make college tuition more
>>>> affordable lately?
>>>
>>> Hasn't happened has it.. Besides there are lots of jobs out there that
>>> do not require a degree. In fact many of them cannot be exported and
>>> will produce a six figure income.
>>>
>>
>> If you have the degree, that makes a much wider range of six figure jobs
>> accessible.
>>
>> We don't make college more affordable by underpaying teachers.
>>
> # College isn't for everyone. It's not supposed to be. We don't make
> # college more affordable by admitting people who shouldn't be there in
> # the first place.
>
> Correct. There are plenty of good jobs that don't require college.
>

And plenty of "educated idiots" with college degrees flipping burgers
and asking if you want fries with that.

[FPP]

Why not go back to 1776, then?
I limited it to 7 years because Obama was the subject of the rant.
He's been in office for 7 years.

Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.

Education is more than a college degree. Lots of vocational schools
would benefit, as well, since they're SCHOOLS.

Even jobs that don't require a degree do require a certain kind of
certification - and that means a school, or training facility.
--
Liberals are concerned about economic inequality.
Conservatives are confident that one day they'll be rich.

[FPP]

Prove it.
--
"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen
with the intent to reply" - Stephen R. Covey

[FPP]

So? Am I somehow required to address everything, now?

When did that law pass?
--
"Listen, I'm a politician... which means that I'm a cheat and a liar,
and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops." -Hunt
for Red October

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ms06$3rn$1...@dont-email.me:

> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.

OMG

> Education is more than a college degree. Lots of vocational schools
> would benefit, as well, since they're SCHOOLS.

But they're.. they're... FOR PROFIT schools!!! Those are evil!!!

[Just Wondering]

On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>
> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>

Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
govern the educational system.

[FPP]

Why? So you can ask me to quote the part of the Constitution that
governs roads? And then the part of the Constitution that governs
what forms the IRS sends out.

That's a fool's errand... and it looks like you're more than suited to
the task all by your lonesome.
--
Atheism is a non prophet organization.

[FPP]

> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>
>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>>>
>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
>> govern the educational system.

> Most federal education legislation is therefore enacted under the
> "spending clause" of the Constitution, which gives Congress the
> authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Since federal
> grants to the states may be conditioned upon the state's adoption of
> certain legal and regulatory structures, the federal government has
> been able to exercise substantial authority over K–12 education policy.
--
"How many times you have to be hit on the head before you figure out
who's hitting you?" -Harry S. Truman

[Scout]

"FPP" <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n6nafn$n6c$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>
>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>>>
>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
>> govern the educational system.
>
> Why? So you can ask me to quote the part of the Constitution that governs
> roads?

Article 1, Section 8, cl 7

> And then the part of the Constitution that governs what forms the IRS
> sends out.

Article I, Section 8, cl 1

> That's a fool's errand... and it looks like you're more than suited to the
> task all by your lonesome.

It's only a fool's errand if there is no enumerated power to reference. If
that is the case, then I refer you to the 10th Amendment.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nbcd$4s7$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> >>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
> >>>
> >> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
> >> govern the educational system.
>
> > Most federal education legislation is therefore enacted under the
> > "spending clause" of the Constitution, which gives Congress the
> > authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Since federal
> > grants to the states may be conditioned upon the state's adoption of
> > certain legal and regulatory structures, the federal government has
> > been able to exercise substantial authority over K­12 education policy.

The "general welfare" clause has been long held to *only* apply to
direct taxation and the levying of tariffs. Otherwise, it would negate
the general intent of the Constitution itself, as well as specifically
render the 10th Amendment meaningless, if not all but repeal it entirely.

Using the "general welfare" clause to directly regulate education, which
is a power not granted to the federal government in Article I, Section
8, is disingenuous attempt top end-run the limitation on federal power
and usurp the legitimate authority and jurisdiction granted to the
states under the 10th Amendment.

[FPP]

On 2016-01-08 01:16:47 -0500, "Scout"

> Organization of U.S. Education:
> The Federal Role
>
> The U.S. federal government does not have any direct authority over
> education in the United States. There is no national ministry of
> education and no education framework law or laws in the United States.
>
> The role of the U.S. federal government is limited to the following:
>
> Exercising leadership in promoting educational policies and reform
> efforts of national scope;
> Administering federal assistance programs authorized and appropriated
> by Congress;
> Enforcing federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education;
> Providing information and statistics about education at the national
> and international levels; and
> Providing technical expertise to the U.S. Department of State, U.S.
> Department of Homeland Security, other federal agencies and Executive
> Office of the President in conducting the foreign affairs of the United
> States as these pertain to education and within the limited scope of
> federal power in this area.
>
> The federal government does not:
>
> Own, control or oversee U.S. schools or postsecondary institutions*;
> Inspect, accredit, or license schools, postsecondary institutions, or
> other educational providers;
> Set curricula or content standards for academic or professional subjects;
> Hire or license faculty or other educational professionals;
> Set educational standards for the admission, enrollment, progress, or
> graduation of students at any level;
> Set standards, license, or regulate professional occupations or
> practicing professionals (other than federal civilian and military
> personnel); or
> Determine or allocate educational budgets for states, localities, or
> institutions.
--
"Primitive life is very common, and intelligent life is fairly rare.
Some would say it has yet to occur on Earth." -Hawking

[BTR1701]

In article <n6ms2a$3sc$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

https://www2.fbi.gov/facts_and_figures/working.htm

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nl53$nfv$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > The role of the U.S. federal government is limited to the following:
> >
> > Exercising leadership in promoting educational policies and reform
> > efforts of national scope;
> > Administering federal assistance programs authorized and appropriated
> > by Congress;
> > Enforcing federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education;
> > Providing information and statistics about education at the national
> > and international levels; and
> > Providing technical expertise to the U.S. Department of State, U.S.
> > Department of Homeland Security, other federal agencies and Executive
> > Office of the President in conducting the foreign affairs of the United
> > States as these pertain to education and within the limited scope of
> > federal power in this area.

You forgot:

Blackmailing the states with the loss of federal funding for everything
from welfare to road repairs if they don't bow down to and obey the
demands of the bureaucrats in Washington.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/7/2016 8:32 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
>
>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>
>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
>>>
>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
>> govern the educational system.
>
> Why?
>

Because Congress needs constitutional authority to legislate. Where's
Congress's constitutional authority to legislate education reform?

[FPP]

And as long as that's just your opinion... I'm fine with that.
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is. -Yogi Berra

[FPP]

Well, my fine legal scholar... blackmail is a criminal offense, isn't it?

Care to give me a legal breakdown of the case for blackmail?
--
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

[Bob]

An opinion if not followed will end the great American experiment.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nv4g$fou$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-01-08 06:53:24 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n6nl53$nfv$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> The role of the U.S. federal government is limited to the following:
> >>>
> >>> Exercising leadership in promoting educational policies and reform
> >>> efforts of national scope;
> >>> Administering federal assistance programs authorized and appropriated
> >>> by Congress;
> >>> Enforcing federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education;
> >>> Providing information and statistics about education at the national
> >>> and international levels; and
> >>> Providing technical expertise to the U.S. Department of State, U.S.
> >>> Department of Homeland Security, other federal agencies and Executive
> >>> Office of the President in conducting the foreign affairs of the United
> >>> States as these pertain to education and within the limited scope of
> >>> federal power in this area.
> >
> > You forgot:
> >
> > Blackmailing the states with the loss of federal funding for everything
> > from welfare to road repairs if they don't bow down to and obey the
> > demands of the bureaucrats in Washington.
>
> Well, my fine legal scholar... blackmail is a criminal offense, isn't it?

As is the case with many things, not when the government does it.

[BTR1701]

In article <n6nv1h$foj$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-01-08 06:30:17 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n6nbcd$4s7$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> On 2016-01-07 19:49:56 -0500, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> said:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/7/2016 4:25 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Education reform hasn't happened because it needs a Congress that cares
> >>>>> about it's children more than it cares about it's banks.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please quote the part of the Constitution granting Congress power to
> >>>> govern the educational system.
> >>
> >>> Most federal education legislation is therefore enacted under the
> >>> "spending clause" of the Constitution, which gives Congress the
> >>> authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Since federal
> >>> grants to the states may be conditioned upon the state's adoption of
> >>> certain legal and regulatory structures, the federal government has

> >>> been able to exercise substantial authority over K�education policy.

> >
> > The "general welfare" clause has been long held to *only* apply to
> > direct taxation and the levying of tariffs. Otherwise, it would negate
> > the general intent of the Constitution itself, as well as specifically
> > render the 10th Amendment meaningless, if not all but repeal it entirely.
> >
> > Using the "general welfare" clause to directly regulate education, which
> > is a power not granted to the federal government in Article I, Section

> > 8, is disingenuous attempt to end-run the limitation on federal power

> > and usurp the legitimate authority and jurisdiction granted to the
> > states under the 10th Amendment.
>
> And as long as that's just your opinion... I'm fine with that.

Not just my opinion. It's the opinion of many legal scholars far and
wide, some of them even (gasp!) liberal.

It's a fact, not an opinion, that the "general welfare" clause has been
held by the Supreme Court to have the limited effect I described. Given
that, and the fact that education is not an enumerated power of the
federal government, what is *your* opinion on how the Department of
Education can be legally and constitutionally justified?

[Unknown]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:n6mpgn$voo$1...@dont-email.me:

I have often wondered how those folks expect to find a job with a degree
in Peruvian basket weaving. I would assume that there is not much call
for that pedigree....particularly when heavy equipment operators can pull
down 6 digits.

[Unknown]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6ms06$3rn$1...@dont-email.me:

Not of the part you responded to which was my post. You overreacted.

[max headroom]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote in news:n6nl53$nfv$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2016-01-08 01:16:47 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:

>> It's only a fool's errand if there is no enumerated power to reference.
>> If that is the case, then I refer you to the 10th Amendment.

>> Organization of U.S. Education:
>> The Federal Role

>> The U.S. federal government does not have any direct authority over
>> education in the United States. There is no national ministry of

>> education and no education framework law or laws in the United States....

Anyone who believes that probably also believed, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your
health plan."

[Gronk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-new-data-say.html

A new set of income statistics answers those questions quite clearly: Yes,
college is worth it, and it’s not even close. For all the struggles that
many young college graduates face, a four-year degree has probably never
been more valuable.

The pay gap between college graduates and everyone else reached a record
high last year, according to the new data, which is based on an analysis
of Labor Department statistics by the Economic Policy Institute in
Washington. Americans with four-year college degrees made 98 percent more
an hour on average in 2013 than people without a degree. That’s up from 89
percent five years earlier, 85 percent a decade earlier and 64 percent in
the early 1980s.

[Unknown]

Gronk <inv...@net.invalid> wrote in news:n84amo$19v$5...@news.mixmin.net:

Then they (and you) should quit your whining.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/24/2016 10:09 PM, Gronk wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-new-data-say.html
> A new set of income statistics answers those questions quite clearly:
> Yes, college is worth it, and it’s not even close. For all the struggles
> that many young college graduates face, a four-year degree has probably
> never been more valuable.
>

The story, if not the study itself, does not mention some key points.

Not all degrees are created equal. A BS in just about any engineering
discipline is worth more than a BA in literature.

College isn't for everyone, never was and never will be. To even imply
that everyone should seek a college degree is disingenuous.

The story only talks about averages. There ARE careers in certain
trades for which incomes are very good indeed.

It also raises another question. If as the study suggests the net cost
of college is a negative, i.e., it will put a half a million dollars in
a graduate's pocket even considering student loans, why should other
segments of society pay for free college as some left wingnuts want?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Gronk <inv...@net.invalid> wrote in news:n84amo$19v$5...@news.mixmin.net:

As usual they are wrong. I eschewed universtiy when I saw the kind of
morons going in and coming out. Make 6 figures in a technical field. Self
taught.

--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

[Gronk]

You're the one whining here.