GOP convention delegate resigns over Trump, endorses Gary Johnson - Polidicks

[video]https://youtu.be/EOGple27Jo0?t=29m1s[/video] How anyone could vote for any of these mental asylum escapees is beyond me. Video is supposed to start at 29:01 but doesn't seem to be working.

Dunno why people are hung up on the roads thing when you still got that "Mentally ill should just become entrepreneurs" gaffe.

The Libertarian Party, also known as the "durr I didn't take econ 101 what's a public good lol" Party, or the "oh don't look at the environmental destruction, free market will fix that" Party. In many ways the Libertarian Party could be a greater evil than some on the hard-right of the GOP, but people refuse to see it just because the "Libertarians" (who aren't even libertarian, by the way) are a little more friendly on the social issues.

[QUOTE=sb27;50721540]I don't think relating something to a fiction, a damn video game nonetheless, is a good analogy. Like I'm not even defending that libertarian perspective. Building roads should always be the job of governments. But that analogy is just stupid.[/QUOTE] Yes and I'm sure ferenheit 452 is just a preposterous book that has no bearing on modern society where people are too interested in reality TV and how a president looks and don't care about politics as long as the war is kept over there, nope fiction can never raise valid criticisms of society [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Problem;50713625]right, so we should just hope somebody with a lot of money that cares about the common good will just keep donating money to maintain roads out of the goodness of their heart lmfao[/QUOTE] But libertarians don't believe in the common good either it's like the name of their whole ideology which is personal liberty

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50713991]Gary Johnson is in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax entirely,[/QUOTE]Is in favor of or has made a pledge to do so? Citation needed. [QUOTE]openly supports and defends [I]private prisons[/I] and instituted many as governor,[/QUOTE]From an economic standpoint private prisons are great, I don't agree with them based on their affects to our criminal justice system and the chronic lack of oversight and accountability in our government. I'm not necessarily opposed to the general concept though. [QUOTE]wants to abolish federal student loans entirely,[/QUOTE]Citation needed/provide context please. [QUOTE]does not want the federal government getting involved in forcing backwards places to teach [I]evolution[/I] over creationism,[/QUOTE]I'm torn on this issue myself, on one hand creationism is bullshit, on the other hand there is the issue of the right of self-determination for states and communities. Citation needed though. [QUOTE]wants to eliminate the Department of Education,[/QUOTE]Citation needed again, and I'm going to have to ask you to put this one in context as well. [QUOTE]wants to replace the public schooling system with competitive voucher programs,[/QUOTE]Citation needed, sounds like it's tied in with the above. [QUOTE]opposes carbon taxes,[/QUOTE]So do a lot of people. [QUOTE][B]supports [I]unlimited campaign donations from corporations[/I][/B],[/QUOTE]I disagree with him on this. [QUOTE]fundamentally opposes government control of healthcare (including single payer),[/QUOTE]I disagree with him on this as well, but I'm going to have to ask you to cite this and provide the context because I'm [I]pretty sure[/I] he was originally talking about the ACA and what a fucking mess it is. [QUOTE]favors privatizing "portions" of social security, wants to eliminate the IRS,[/QUOTE]Anyone who wants to attack the IRS is okay in my book, but I doubt he could do much about either of these things regardless of how he feels. [QUOTE][I]eliminate the income tax and capital gains tax[/I] and replace it with a national 23% sales tax...[/QUOTE]Would create just about as many issues as it would solve, probably not a good idea but what we have isn't a good idea. This is known as the "same shit, different day" phenomena. Once more I have to remind you that it's doubtful that this wild idea would ever be accepted because get this: the president doesn't have the ability to arbitrarily decide things like this. You've said yourself that Hillary "won't be that bad" because she can't just act like a tyrant, so why is it suddenly true for Gary Johnson? (who doesn't have a reputation for being a career politician with many, many friends in Washington) [QUOTE]but any self-professed progressive who can support replacing all taxes with a [I]flat national sales tax[/I] and wants to get the government out of healthcare and eliminate the IRS and the Department of Education is pretty fucking clearly not a progressive.[/QUOTE]Here's a hint: not everyone thinks like you do and there isn't a "progressive hivemind." Libertarian social policies are extremely progressive, so if "progressives" cared far more about gay rights, ending the war on drugs, and other social things libertarians often comment on they might look on betting on the Libertarian Party's horse over your shrill hag of a mare to win this race. [QUOTE]Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed[/QUOTE]Oh, because saying "the government really shouldn't police people's personal lives" (big, big, big aspect of libertarianism, the one thing all libertarians agree on) is completely awful because police states are [I]just great.[/I] [QUOTE]would bring us right on back into the laissez-faire economic policy that threw us into the Gilded Age and the Great Depression[/QUOTE]Which, again, would never happen because we've gone well beyond that point now. Despite what all the ancaps and the fedora-wearing peanut gallery will tell you, a true, 100% libertarian state is just as flawed as a true 100% communist state because people are actually terrible (completely on accident most of the time) and both ideologies rely on human nature being something it isn't. I've heard plenty of people who wave around the socialism flag claim that "pure communism is flawed" (I recall you saying this yourself) so when the "small L" libertarians say the same thing you should grant them the same courtesy of listening. [QUOTE]He's a nice guy, but his policy ideas are total fucking lunacy.[/QUOTE]You've got a lot of points to cite, and even if every single thing every Tom, Dick, and Harry said in criticism toward Gary Johnson were true it doesn't change one simple fact: a lot of people, maybe even a majority, think that Gary Johnson is a hell of a lot better choice than some fat fuck in a wig and some shriveled witch who are quite honestly the same ugly beast. [QUOTE=daschnek;50723428]The Libertarian Party, also known as the "durr I didn't take econ 101 what's a public good lol" Party,[/QUOTE]Off to a magnificent start! [QUOTE]or the "oh don't look at the environmental destruction, free market will fix that" Party.[/QUOTE]Hey, if people universally gave a shit about the environment then the free market would absolutely fit that. Unfortunately most people don't, you could say that a laissez-faire free market would be giving us what we deserve: an uninhabitable planet. (arguing that the sum total of all our sins is not absolved by the pure few, not sure if I believe that's right to do though) Again though, [I]great start[/I] to your post. [QUOTE]In many ways the Libertarian Party could be a greater evil than some on the hard-right[/QUOTE]I consider the regressive left to be the greatest evil of them all, I can deal with the lunacy on the hard-right one way or another. I'm sure this won't sit well with you though, the fact that I'm in the center almost always pisses people off and especially those that treat the GOP as extremists. [QUOTE]but people refuse to see it just because the "Libertarians" (who aren't even libertarian, by the way) are a little more friendly on the social issues.[/QUOTE]Wow, it's almost like people have different opinions and care about things that you don't care about! [QUOTE=Sableye;50723452]Yes and I'm sure ferenheit 452 is just a preposterous book that has no bearing on modern society where people are too interested in reality TV and how a president looks and don't care about politics as long as the war is kept over there, nope fiction can never raise valid criticisms of society[/QUOTE]Two things: One, it's "Fahrenheit 451." [I]You're posting on the internet, you can look this shit up.[/I] Two, a critically-acclaimed book is a hell of a lot more credible that a fucking video game that uses wild, exaggerated corporatism as a plot device.

[URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm"]Here's the site[/URL] I based all of those views off of. Each of them are based off of direct quotes from interviews and campaign materials, which are cited in each section.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50723931]Is in favor of or has made a pledge to do so? Citation needed. From an economic standpoint private prisons are great, I don't agree with them based on their affects to our criminal justice system and the chronic lack of oversight and accountability in our government. I'm not necessarily opposed to the general concept though. Citation needed/provide context please. I'm torn on this issue myself, on one hand creationism is bullshit, on the other hand there is the issue of the right of self-determination for states and communities. Citation needed though. Citation needed again, and I'm going to have to ask you to put this one in context as well. Citation needed, sounds like it's tied in with the above. So do a lot of people. I disagree with him on this. I disagree with him on this as well, but I'm going to have to ask you to cite this and provide the context because I'm [I]pretty sure[/I] he was originally talking about the ACA and what a fucking mess it is. Anyone who wants to attack the IRS is okay in my book, but I doubt he could do much about either of these things regardless of how he feels. Would create just about as many issues as it would solve, probably not a good idea but what we have isn't a good idea. This is known as the "same shit, different day" phenomena. Once more I have to remind you that it's doubtful that this wild idea would ever be accepted because get this: the president doesn't have the ability to arbitrarily decide things like this. You've said yourself that Hillary "won't be that bad" because she can't just act like a tyrant, so why is it suddenly true for Gary Johnson? (who doesn't have a reputation for being a career politician with many, many friends in Washington) Here's a hint: not everyone thinks like you do and there isn't a "progressive hivemind." Libertarian social policies are extremely progressive, so if "progressives" cared far more about gay rights, ending the war on drugs, and other social things libertarians often comment on they might look on betting on the Libertarian Party's horse over your shrill hag of a mare to win this race. Oh, because saying "the government really shouldn't police people's personal lives" (big, big, big aspect of libertarianism, the one thing all libertarians agree on) is completely awful because police states are [I]just great.[/I] Which, again, would never happen because we've gone well beyond that point now. Despite what all the ancaps and the fedora-wearing peanut gallery will tell you, a true, 100% libertarian state is just as flawed as a true 100% communist state because people are actually terrible (completely on accident most of the time) and both ideologies rely on human nature being something it isn't. I've heard plenty of people who wave around the socialism flag claim that "pure communism is flawed" (I recall you saying this yourself) so when the "small L" libertarians say the same thing you should grant them the same courtesy of listening. You've got a lot of points to cite, and even if every single thing every Tom, Dick, and Harry said in criticism toward Gary Johnson were true it doesn't change one simple fact: a lot of people, maybe even a majority, think that Gary Johnson is a hell of a lot better choice than some fat fuck in a wig and some shriveled witch who are quite honestly the same ugly beast. Off to a magnificent start! Hey, if people universally gave a shit about the environment then the free market would absolutely fit that. Unfortunately most people don't, you could say that a laissez-faire free market would be giving us what we deserve: an uninhabitable planet. (arguing that the sum total of all our sins is not absolved by the pure few, not sure if I believe that's right to do though) Again though, [I]great start[/I] to your post. I consider the regressive left to be the greatest evil of them all, I can deal with the lunacy on the hard-right one way or another. I'm sure this won't sit well with you though, the fact that I'm in the center almost always pisses people off and especially those that treat the GOP as extremists. Wow, it's almost like people have different opinions and care about things that you don't care about! Two things: One, it's "Fahrenheit 451." [I]You're posting on the internet, you can look this shit up.[/I] Two, a critically-acclaimed book is a hell of a lot more credible that a fucking video game that uses wild, exaggerated corporatism as a plot device.[/QUOTE] He literally says he wants to abolish the department of education in the video I posted, he says a lot of other retarded stuff to. Also your post is full of silly false dichotomies. Like presenting 100% capitalism and 100% communism as the only possibility, same for saying that you either support the government being 100% out of people personal lives or being in favour of a police state, never mind that this conflicts with your absolutely absurd statement of people wanting an uninhabitable planet, firstly nobody fucking wants that they're just easily mislead by corporate interests who pump out dodgy papers so they don't have to pay fines for fucking the environment , but also because it destroys the planet for other people who dont want to have their lives destroyed by the effects of global warming, thus the deniers are imposing their choice onto those people which directly clashes with the libertarian ideal that people should be able to impose things on others. Overall libertarianism is just a mess of contradictions and silly assumptions (like the idea that consumers always make the rational choice, which they don't)

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50723931]Two things: One, it's "Fahrenheit 451." [I]You're posting on the internet, you can look this shit up.[/I] Two, a critically-acclaimed book is a hell of a lot more credible that a fucking video game that uses wild, exaggerated corporatism as a plot device.[/QUOTE] A drawn out poorly composed post comprised mostly of yourself asking for citations, and then you decide to end it by complaining about a typo and saying "you can look this shit up." Bravo.

Well he is right that the doe shouldn't exist, education is a state matter. Schools also shouldn't teach creationism or evolution, that's a matter to be handled at home.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724101]Well he is right that the doe shouldn't exist, education is a state matter. Schools also shouldn't teach creationism or evolution, that's a matter to be handled at home.[/QUOTE] yeah and if the state/locality schools in bumfuck mississippi decide to teach that lord god jesus in heaven is the best and that calculus isn't real because god made the world, they should be allowed to, they're just representing their constituents, facts be damned obviously the solution is to make voucher programs so that the impoverished uneducated people in these places can make the choice to send their kid to the other city school 45 miles away every day so that they can get a decent education. don't forget, they need to pay their tolls to pay for the roads, too, but they won't have that tax burden so it's really real freedom. until they buy school supplies for their kid and it's like $67 instead of $50.

[QUOTE=adamsz;50721354]You don't think we're already living in a new Gilded Age with the way politics are?[/QUOTE] Maybe you should check out a book called The Jungle and tell me its the Gilded Age all over again

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724001][URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm"]Here's the site[/URL] I based all of those views off of. Each of them are based off of direct quotes from interviews and campaign materials, which are cited in each section.[/QUOTE]That only answers some of my questions, there isn't much context to be had in limited snippets. You didn't really acknowledge that, despite his most staunch positions, he can't actually just arbitrarily decide to do something and then magically do it as president. For example, abolishing corporate tax, this would benefit a lot of people who contribute a large amount of money to many politicians but money alone does not get people reelected at all. Even among some of the right wing a complete and blanket removal of corporate tax wouldn't go over well, and it certainly wouldn't go over well with anyone on the left. (anyone except the "regressive leftists" who are actually more centrists firmly down in the authoritarian camp) All of his most controversial stances, be they personal or party, are going to face opposition from [U]both[/U] sides of the fence and he'll be in the unfortunate position of having little friends if he decides to act on them. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;50724009]He literally says he wants to abolish the department of education in the video I posted, he says a lot of other retarded stuff to.[/QUOTE]I don't watch videos, I have a 56k connection. [QUOTE]Also your post is full of silly false dichotomies. Like presenting 100% capitalism and 100% communism as the only possibility, same for saying that you either support the government being 100% out of people personal lives or being in favour of a police state,[/QUOTE]Huh? I never presented either of those as the "only possibility" in any circumstance, I'm responding to the tone and claims put out by Isak in this thread and others regarding libertarianism. [QUOTE]never mind that this conflicts with your absolutely absurd statement of people wanting an uninhabitable planet,[/QUOTE]It is impossible to take you seriously when you can't even exhibit basic reading comprehension:[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50723931](arguing that the sum total of all our sins is not absolved by the pure few, not sure if I believe that's right to do though)[/QUOTE] I wasn't making an argument, I was saying that somebody could possibly make such an argument. As you can see I don't personally hold this position. [QUOTE]firstly nobody fucking wants that they're just easily mislead by corporate interests who pump out dodgy papers so they don't have to pay fines for fucking the environment ,[/QUOTE]Oh, it's all [I]the corporations![/I] Surely there isn't anyone out there who believes that people are too puny and small to affect such a mighty thing like our planet, nah, it's just corporate propaganda and mind control. Give me a fucking break, you were saying what about false dichotomies now? [QUOTE]but also because it destroys the planet for other people who dont want to have their lives destroyed by the effects of global warming,[/QUOTE]Yes you have discovered the problem of majority rule, outstanding! [QUOTE]thus the deniers are imposing their choice onto those people which directly clashes with the libertarian ideal that people should be able to impose things on others.[/QUOTE]I'm sure you thought this was some big "gotcha" post where I recant my primitive beliefs and join the cult of whatever the fuck you believe, but unfortunately you've just proven to me that you didn't read but didn't actually understand any of what I said. Remember that first "false dichotomy" example you used? Yeah, I acknowledged that no government system is flawless, especially not a 100% libertarian system, precisely because of the river dilemma you've clumsily scattered out above. No, abolishing the EPA is not a good idea, but when somebody says "I will destroy the EPA" and actually attempts to do it, they inevitably encounter something that plagues all campaign promises: bureaucracy. So let's say Gary Johnson does press forward with all of this, he navigates the red tape and manages to wheel and deal some bill that greatly cuts back on environmental spending or eliminates carbon tax or some such thing. Well then that bill has to pass, it has to actually make it past all of these representatives that are [U]representing[/U] people who are often very vocal. Inevitably something else will get tacked on to the bill, some shit here and there that makes people extra angry and maybe even was done so precisely to sabotage the bill. This is how our government works, it's slow, it's convoluted, and there's a lot of chance for any measure of change to fail and die before maturity and often bills die in the womb of legislative process simply because of the current environment. Recent terrorist attack? Probably not a good time to introduce a bill that limits the NSA's powers, and given the topic of [I]climate change[/I] it's often a bad time to introduce anything that stands in the way of nebulous "progress" on "doing something." I really don't see how your concerns are something I should be worried about, I'll be the first one to admit that Gary Johnson is a political nobody who's only relevant because choices A and B are absolutely disgusting. Even if every bizarre and crazy thing every single libertarian, ancap/anarchist, or some other such fringe believer said in the most wild internet argument was a campaign promise of Johnson, every single one, that doesn't mean any or all of them have even a chance of becoming reality. [QUOTE=Paramud;50724010]A drawn out poorly composed post comprised mostly of yourself asking for citations, and then you decide to end it by complaining about a typo and saying "you can look this shit up." Bravo.[/QUOTE]Cognitive dissonance ahoy! There's a difference between "I need you to provide some evidence" and claiming something and fucking up not only once, but twice. Bravo, you just demonstrated you have no clue why it's important to cite sources.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724127]yeah and if the state/locality schools in bumfuck mississippi decide to teach that lord god jesus in heaven is the best and that calculus isn't real because god made the world, they should be allowed to, they're just representing their constituents, facts be damned obviously the solution is to make voucher programs so that the impoverished uneducated people in these places can make the choice to send their kid to the other city school 45 miles away every day so that they can get a decent education. don't forget, they need to pay their tolls to pay for the roads, too, but they won't have that tax burden so it's really real freedom. until they buy school supplies for their kid and it's like $67 instead of $50.[/QUOTE] No, they shouldn't. Separation of church and state exists for a reason. God didn't invent the computer or atom bomb.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724101]Well he is right that the doe shouldn't exist, education is a state matter. Schools also shouldn't teach creationism or evolution, that's a matter to be handled at home.[/QUOTE] evolution is one of the most thoroughly proven and easily demonstrable theories in the history of science if we're going to stop teaching evolution then we might as well stop teaching fucking plate tectonics and general relativity too

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724162]That only answers some of my questions, there isn't much context to be had in limited snippets. You didn't really acknowledge that, despite his most staunch positions, he can't actually just arbitrarily decide to do something and then magically do it as president. For example, abolishing corporate tax, this would benefit a lot of people who contribute a large amount of money to many politicians but money alone does not get people reelected at all. Even among some of the right wing a complete and blanket removal of corporate tax wouldn't go over well, and it certainly wouldn't go over well with anyone on the left. (anyone except the "regressive leftists" who are actually more centrists firmly down in the authoritarian camp) All of his most controversial stances, be they personal or party, are going to face opposition from [U]both[/U] sides of the fence and he'll be in the unfortunate position of having little friends if he decides to act on them. [/QUOTE] On the Issues has links to pages on-site about each source under nearly every quote - including his [i]own book[/i] and blog interviews. I doubt you actually looked at any of those links - the majority come from linked websites, debates, interviews, or his own book (which obviously isn't fully available because it's a paid product). Quick googling of the sources, article titles, and websites could easily find you where they're cited from if you want more context. Don't dismiss it because you don't feel like doing research - I'm not going to do it for you. I already provided you with my source, if you want further context, [I]go look for it[/I] to prove me wrong.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724162]Cognitive dissonance ahoy! There's a difference between "I need you to provide some evidence" and claiming something and fucking up not only once, but twice. Bravo, you just demonstrated you have no clue why it's important to cite sources.[/QUOTE] [I]You're posting on the internet, you can look this shit up.[/I]

[QUOTE=Pops;50724183]No, they shouldn't. Separation of church and state exists for a reason. God didn't invent the computer or atom bomb.[/QUOTE] And evolution is a fact. I don't trust parents to teach their kids about the basics of evolutionary biology out of some idiotic religious opposition. I don't even trust parents to talk to their kids about sex - and if they won't, let's just make the schools do it. I trust the government to be more responsible with education than I trust parents. And I was homeschooled for [I]years[/I]. By religious textbooks. By a (luckily) half-competent mother. I know this shit. If my mother had been an alcoholic religious nutjob, I would've rather had CPS take me away than deal with a stunted education in the name of [I]states' rights[/I]. That's not freedom unless you're a religious cockup who ignores science and is tired of actual experts. That's oppression in the name of freedom. Fuck it.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724101]Well he is right that the doe shouldn't exist, education is a state matter. Schools also shouldn't teach creationism or evolution, that's a matter to be handled at home.[/QUOTE] Evolution isn't a debatable idea, it's a thoroughly proven scientific theory. Might as well say we should teach kids the Earth is flat by your logic.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724101]Well he is right that the doe shouldn't exist, education is a state matter.[/QUOTE] Honest question - [I]why[/I] is education something that should be a state matter, and not a federal one? Note that was a "should be" and not "is" - I don't particularly care about what old laws set education up as a non-federal matter, if it cannot be backed up with an actual reason. And the existence of the federal DoE clearly shows that the law as it stands puts education within the purview of the federal government.

Eh, I believe it's that whole 10th Amendment thing, y'know, where a right not prohibited to the state or given directly to the fed is automatically given to the state.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724101]Well he is right that the doe shouldn't exist, education is a state matter. Schools also shouldn't teach creationism or evolution, that's a matter to be handled at home.[/QUOTE] Why is education a state matter? Why shouldn't science be taught in science classes?

[QUOTE=Pops;50724367]Eh, I believe it's that whole 10th Amendment thing, y'know, where a right not prohibited to the state or given directly to the fed is automatically given to the state.[/QUOTE] Yes and the problem is that Christians can't keep their religion out of schools, which directly breaks separation of church and state, hence why the Fed has to step in and say no. Evolution is not religion, it's pure factual science hence why it should be taught in schools over creationism, which is pure religion.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724367]Eh, I believe it's that whole 10th Amendment thing, y'know, where a right not prohibited to the state or given directly to the fed is automatically given to the state.[/QUOTE] Okay, but WHY? The truth remains true no matter where you are - voltage is the product of resistance and current, whether you're in Kansas or California or Chengdu or Charon. Unless you're willing to argue that true facts are not a core and integral part of education, there's a simple and inarguable efficiency gain from having a single national body set certain components of the curriculum, which can be added to by state or local governments to add sections of particular relevance to their area.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724367]Eh, I believe it's that whole 10th Amendment thing, y'know, where a right not prohibited to the state or given directly to the fed is automatically given to the state.[/QUOTE] Literally has nothing to do with federal education.

Look, I'm not against evolution being taught since it is factually proven, but you try going to one of those Bible belt states and tell them that the flying spaghetti monster is wrong.

[QUOTE=Pops;50724415]Look, I'm not against evolution being taught since it is factually proven, but you try going to one of those Bible belt states and tell them that the flying spaghetti monster is wrong.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter what they think, the separation of church and state forbids them from teaching creationism whether they like it or not. Evolution on the other hand is a fact and letting nutter omit facts from school is a good way of destroying your countries scientific industry.

Schools are funded by property taxes already, so richer regions pay more into schools while poorer regions get less funding which only perpetuates the region's economic statuses. Also, schools should be teaching life skills, not religion or moreorless useless facts like evolution. They need to learn basic math skills, personal finance skills, physical education to stay fit, etc. Learning about creationism vs evolution literally does not prepare a child for the adult world in any way. [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;50724423]Evolution on the other hand is a fact [/QUOTE] Technically a theory that is most likely fact :eng101:

[QUOTE=Pops;50724415]Look, I'm not against evolution being taught since it is factually proven, [/QUOTE] This is incorrect, it is not "factually" proven. It's a theory and it's stuck at being a theory because it cannot be replicated through experimentation. Not that I believe it's false, but it does help to use the proper description of it.

The educational inconsistency in this country is ridiculous.. For example, California has a different grading scheme and class system than practically the rest of the country, and is suffering from grade inflation. Abolishing the department of education is a terrible idea

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724198]On the Issues has links to pages on-site about each source under nearly every quote - including his [i]own book[/i] and blog interviews. I doubt you actually looked at any of those links - the majority come from linked websites, debates, interviews, or his own book (which obviously isn't fully available because it's a paid product). Quick googling of the sources, article titles, and websites could easily find you where they're cited from if you want more context. Don't dismiss it because you don't feel like doing research - I'm not going to do it for you. I already provided you with my source, if you want further context, [I]go look for it[/I] to prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]I clicked on those links and nothing happened, so it's probably a data problem on my end. I'll reiterate what I said earlier: I have a 56k connection (technically it's slower this time of day) so it really isn't a matter of how I feel. Oh and there's also this: [QUOTE=Paramud;50724206][I]You're posting on the internet, you can look this shit up.[/I][/QUOTE]Onus probandi.