the Omega.

http://omega.earth-alliance.org

Entitlements...the real reason for Federal Systems. Allow California to entitle all they want, but, when the people meant to pay for those entitlements decide that they'd rather move to Tennessee, California won't be able to afford those entitlements.

Someone has to pay for all the "rights" of the left. If they attempt to implement those "rights" state by state, then the people they depend on to pay for those "rights" will simply move to states that don't make them pay for liberal America's "rights". Thus enter liberal America's attempt to stick the Federal Government's nose everywhere it doesn't belong. I can move states pretty easily, but moving to a new country would be rather more difficult.

Best of luck, Fraz. Hope all goes well and that you're back clowning around soon with all your CWG friends.

Well, the weekend activity thing kills my application.

North and South America are two separate continents. Their temporary geographic connection is constantly being destroyed in the slow tectonic pace of the earth.

jesst, I probably did sugarcoat it a bit for you. The point that people here are trying to make is that you can form a small group of people (through overlapping in-game pacts) on the primary server to help you learn how to play this game. If you want to play on this server as five new players, then your best bet is to really get into an alliance (all five of you would likely be welcomed in many alliances). I have tried to build alliances before. Honestly, my efforts generally began in IRC channels and ended in failure. I grant you that with the same time that I had then, I could now make a better go of it, but creating something new on this server is hard. Everything is done to try to encourage single players (especially new players) to not play this server on their own or to join established alliances. The Omega has a habit of helping smaller alliances (making sure our members don't get carried away, offering 72hr DNHs, and even pacting smaller groups), it is in our nature and part of what makes us Omega. However, part of what makes this the alliance server is that small influxes of new players don't really impact the politics of this server. It takes a larger influx of new/returning players to impact this server. If a bunch of Arrow players decided to return to the game, that would cause an immediate impact. If WoG decided to make a go of it on their own on the server, that would make an immediate impact.

This is the server where the Helmets, Grelks, Martians, Floyds, Arsenals, etc. of the game come to prove their prowess by leading the armies of their members in wider coalitions to see what chaos they can create and to see who can come out on top. We may not be what we once were, but this is the server that fought world wars and at time crashed Swirve's servers. This is where alliances have been destroyed in a matter of hours and others have survived 7 week long endeavors to come out in victory. This is where IX established domination and was continually in the dominant coalition for years. This is where LaF and Evolution can't stop fighting each other and SoF/SoL look to create their own fun throughout. This is where Imag has fought more losing wars than perhaps any alliance in the game, but just smile all the way through because they mostly care to be able to fight in the first place and win in the second. This is where the right group of people can put together the most unexpected war or netgaining efforts. Welcome to the fire.

jesst, as Omega's Minister of Foreign Affairs, I encourage you to have your leaders contact me regarding any issues that exist between Omega and your clan. Part of being on the alliance server is simply showing that you care enough to find out who to talk to in order to resolve issues. All small tags are determined to be Spam tags until proven otherwise. People like Sov may form a small clan, but be recognized as true "alliance" immediately because they take the steps to say that they are an "alliance" and not just a "clan". The difference being that an "alliance" engages in politics (at least minimally) with other "alliances" where a clan doesn't really engage in politics to any extent.

The alliances on this server know the political rules of the road because they have fought the wars to determine just what those rules would be in the first place. There are still times that the rules become blurred and alliances attempt to focus the rules in their favor through war or diplomatic means, but this is generally over smaller issues and the alliances still know what they're not fighting over. At this point, I'm basically just restating what's already been said, but let me give you some solid advice:

1. Have your clan contact me if you have issues with The Omega or would even just like to discuss a pact.

2. Contact alliances, negotiate and sign pacts, get FAs to okay retals on their members (letting them know to expect hits coming from your alliance make FAs lives easier and they'll teach you what the retal policies are).

3. Consider trying to find a veteran of the game to join your clan and advise you. Someone who doesn't want to devote much time to the game can teach you without, necessarily, taking the clan over. You could even just try to find a retired veteran to just advise you without actually playing.

4. We have explained the limitations and circumstances of this server here. This is a no holds barred environment in which you either sink or you swim. Try to understand this environment, learn to swim in it, and only after that can you try to change the environment.

Washington can't change Washington. Montgomery, Juneau, Pheonix, Little Rock, Sacramento, Denver, Hartford, Dover, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Honolulu, Boise, Springfield, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Topeka, Frankfort, Baton Rouge, Augusta, Annapolis, Boston, Lansing, Saint Paul, Jackson, Jefferson City, Helena, Lincoln, Carson City, Concord, Trenton, Santa Fe, Albancy, Raleigh, Bismarck, Columbus, Oklahoma City, Salem, Harrisburg, Providence, Columbia, Pierre, Nashville, Austin, Salt Lake City, Montpelier, Richmond, Olympia, Charlston, Madison, and Cheyenne are the only cities that can change Washington.

The people who have the power to change Washington, D.C. serve their constituents much closer to home. They serve in their respective state capitals. Together, Americans can change our nation and our democracy, but we'll have to go to a constitutional convention to do so.


*FYI: the list of cities above is a list of state capitals.

**Waits for be flamed for the above FYI**

PS: Just my opinion. This in no way reflects the way that Omega feels or that Omegans in general feel.

Hi gibzgirl. Hi ZTers.

*waves*

Not from Akron...from Cincinnati. Loyalty within the state trumps Chicago and New York.

Pang, Cincinnati is known for Cincinnati Chili which is significantly different than other types of chili in the US.

http://whatscookingamerica.net/Beef/CincinnatiChili.htm

Other Ohio cities may not be famous for their chili, but Cincinnati is!

Have you seen the Sonic Drive In Commercial about which hotdog (Chicago Style or New York Style) you would choose if you were in Akron, Ohio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ayduUbjU3Q

Seriously? Asking which of those two hot dogs would be bought in Ohio....home state of Cincinnati Chili and you ask which of two hot dogs from Chicago and New York you would choose. Um, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that, in Ohio, Chicago and New York can go hang themselves on this issue because loyalty will go to Cincinnati and the Chili dog.

President Obama is the magic president. He wishes things were the way he wants them to be and believes that things are the way he thinks they should be, so they are the way he thinks they should be. President Obama lives in his own little world where wishes matter and reality can take a hike. Sadly, the rest of us must live in the real world where reality matters and wishes can take a hike. Until wishes turn into action to change reality...they are meaningless.

The Keystone Pipeline would create jobs, stimulate business and has united two opposing forces (unions and businesses). President Wish It Think It is too concerned with his non-existant reelection chances to do right by the nation. The Keystone developers have listened to concerns raised by the states concerning environmental impact and made adjustments as necessary to accommodate the people that are far more concerned about the environmental impact in individual areas than the Federal Government is. If Wish It Think It had determined to utilize federal and state resources to conduct a final, accelerated environmental impact study, then I would have supported him. President Wish It Think It, however, wishes the states would go away and thinks that only the federal government can know anything, so he has ignored the reality of the situation and substituted what he wishes things were. He wishes he could put off a decision until after he's defeated in the 2012 election.

I may be optimistic, but I dearly hope that President Wish It Think It will be a one term president.

NASCAR is more than simply turning left. It's turning left while keeping your car from hitting the car above you, even as your car wants to go up into that car. It's driving aggressively enough to win the race, but not so aggressively as to cause a crash that takes yourself or other people out of the race (especially your team members).

Have I mentioned that I did not vote for President Wish It Think It.

Canada: Take our oil.

US Businesses/Unions: Yes, yes, yes!

US environmentalist: No, that oil is too dirty, let China have the bad name from using dirty oil.

China: Bring on the black gold! How much can you send?

Chinese environmentalist: My only regret is that I have but one life to give for the environment.

US: We need more oil!

...

As a clarification, Omega's main contacts are myself and Havoc.

ICQ: 314294818
MSN:
AIM: Angel137379

I'm also frequently on irc.gamesurge.net #omega

I respond to PMs on this forum regularly and if you can't find me elsewhere, I reccommend PMing me here.

Havoc is also on these forums. I'll let him post his contact info if he like or you can PM him on these forums too.

We are Omega's primary contacts (admittedly, I need to increase my availability). Henrik, Alicia, and Theosqua occassionally talk to others in official capacity, but they have real lives to live and may be too busy to conduct foreign affairs talks. Havoc and I also have real lives which require significant attention and thus I reccomend sending us private messages.

Yeah, I emailed my Rep and Senators today.

Constitutional Convention folks, that's what we really need. Time to remove the federal government from the states' and the people's business

The reason there is no good candidate is that the would be "good candidates" have realized that this nation's problems cannot be solved in the national capital. Hopefully some of those people have begun to see a solution in the 50 state capitals. It's time for the states to collectively remind Washington just who is closest to this nation's sovereignty. 34 states to demand a constitutional convention (never actually been done before, but still in the US Constitution); 38 states to ratify amendments to remove the Federal Government's abnormally large nose out the states' and the people's business.

The real fight is not for Washington, it's to unite the states in common, legal cause against the federal government. The people assigned a portion of their sovereignty to the states who in turn assigned a portion of that to the federal government. Someone needs to remind the federal government of this fact.

A candidate winning their home state is a given in any election. Al Gore did not try to win Tennessee. He gave the state up without a fight. If you know you can't win your home state, then you have no business running for President. People are tested in their home state's for political careers. It's not about winning just one state, it's about winning the only state that matters. Yes, every state is important, but a candidate's home state is the one that knows them best. They can put on a front for everyone else, but the home state buys only what they already know. The home state is the one that's put them into position for a presidential run, so it's natural that by that point the state is very likely to vote for them. but if they don't, then they have seen something they just don't like.

Archaic is right, Gore couldn't win his own proving grounds, so he didn't deserve the presidency. Furthermore, the hoopla around Florida could have impacted voting in other parts of the nation where voting was ongoing at the time. If someone has already won, why vote?

For the record, the US Supreme Court only held that the state of Florida had to use the same standards for recounting in all parts of the state and that they had to abide by the deadline. Florida decided that they could not recount the votes in an acceptable manner in the time they had remaining.

Are there better ways to achieve democracy? Yes, but two points.

Can we really say that democracy has been achieved in Iraq? I don't think so; not yet. Until now, they have had a foreign power (the US) all in their business. You haven't really learned to ride a bike until no one is holding the bike steady for you. We are only now in Iraq in a facilatory manner, much like the way that foreign watchers can help lend legitimacy to factious countries where trust among the factions is limited. The US has let go of the bike, now we find out if Iraq actually knows how to ride it.

2nd point: What ways could we have helped achieve Democracy in Iraq going from 2002 forward without some form of significant war (actual civil war, not merely sectarian violence for example)? Several ways in general become rather limited when the details of 2002 Iraq are applied.

The final history on Iraq for the last 9 years has yet to be written. We shall see what happens.

Do I believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing? Yes. Was it best done the way it was done and when it was done? I don't know.

Hussein was a destabilizing force in the Middle East (though arguably a stabilizing force in Iraq).

Other tin pot dictators could look at Hussein and say to themselves, "He's successfully defying the US and the West, I can do it too."

He murdered his own people and committed most other atrocities as well.

He was manuevering to get out from under the sanctions imposed on him.

Imagine if Hussein had gotten out from under sanctions and Iran were pursuing their own nuclear weapon. Can you imagine the (possible) horror that would (possibly) have befallen the Middle East?

Looking back at a situation it's easy to not see "what might have been". Frankly it's easy to see it and dismiss it as impossible to know "what might have been", but where we have a clearly established pattern of behavior and some understanding of the situation, we can establish probabilities for various "what might have been"s. In the case of Saddam Hussein, I would contend that the "what might have been" would very likely have been very bad.

That being said, "what might have been" must be judged against what is/will be now. I just don't think we can know this right now. There is no established pattern here. There is no knowing what will happen in Iraq now.

Let's create a different scenario: A fighter pilot is experiencing technical difficulties. He/she has the choice of two routes to an area that he/she could relatively safely put the plane down. The shorter of the two routes goes over a densely populated urban area. The second route takes the pilot over less populated suburban area, but is a longer route. The pilot is unsure whether or not they can get the plan to the safe landing area. If you're that fighter pilot, which route do you choose? One route gives you the advantage of time; the other route gives the advantage in the worst case scenario.


Thinking about choosing a set of problems got me thinking about opportunities. With any set of problems also comes a set of opportunities. You don't just choose a set of problems; you also choose a set of opportunities. Iraq has opportunities that they did not have under Saddam Hussein. Could they fail to achieve the most they have an opportunity to achieve? Yes, but still they have the opportunity to solidify a complete and whole democracy. Iraqis did not have this opportunity under Saddam Hussein.


I really don't want to get into a debate about the merits of the Iraq war on this thread, so I guess I'd better stop here.

The best that America can do is to eliminate the largest threats to ourselves and our allies, be there to facilitate talks, and help with the humanitarian crises after conflicts erupt. Unfortunately, some parts of the world are simply unprepared to set aside historical conflicts. We did the best we could in Iraq, we gave Iraq a chance, and now they must either stand or fall on their own.

If we end up invading Iran, it will be for the same reason that we invaded Iraq; their leaders will have ticked us off one too many times and defied us one too many times. No nation can afford to have their prestige impugned in the way that Saddam Hussein did and the way that they Ayatollahs are doing. Looking back through history, I think it's safe to say that wars don't solve problems; they only trade one set of problems for another. Not that it means war is necessarily always the wrong choice, but you have to recognize that choosing war is simply choosing a different set of problems.

America chose a different set of problems for ourselves and for the people of Iraq. Did we have the right to choose for the Iraqis? No, but we had to right to prevent any other upstart morons from getting ideas from Saddam Hussein and we had the right to eliminate Saddam's clear danger to our country and our allies. Choosing for the Iraqi people a different set of problems came as a consequence of those decisions that we did have a right to make (regardless of the correctness of those decisions one way or the other).

This from a conservative. I think this explains why the right (in the US) is more willing to use force in foreign affairs. We choose to recognize that war is not always the wrong choice. It also explains the reluctance to fight that we sometimes have. Fighting for fightings sake is just bad business. The right needs a clear set of changes to the set of problems that will have to solved before they consent to military action, but once they have the set of changes, they don't just dismiss them (ahem pacifists).

To all the pacifists out there, a statement for consideration concerning the fighting of tyranny: Peace is conditional on there being freedom. Where there is no freedom, people struggle to attain it, hence there is no peace. Peace under tyranny is an illusion, a farce. Freedom does not garuntee peace, but it is a prerequisite to peace. Free nations still fight, but they don't have to (fight themselves) because the people are not inherently fighting for their freedoms.

You could end wars by simply disabling special attacks for whatever period of time and limiting alliances to 5 LGs per country during that period.

So long as you do not reference your personal blog in class or advertise your religious activity, then you maintain a wall between the two. Off duty cops can absolutely attend political rallies (they can't wear their uniform while doing so as that would violate the wall between their personal lives and their public lives).

Public drunkenness could certainly be seen as violating the wall between your private self and your public self as it makes you inherently unable to maintain the wall.

If we do not draw the line between an individuals personal life and their public life, then it will not be long before we make no distinction between private individuals and public officials. This would be extremely dangerous to the rights of everyone. We simply have no choice but to draw the line before we get to this point.

That's all well and good Hawkeyee, but I fail to see how getting drunk compares to exercising your rights. Getting drunk in public doesn't just negatively impact you as a teacher, it negatively impacts you period. We must make the distinction between constitutionally protected behaviors and those behaviors that are not protected. If your activity is protected, then we have to make a distinction between your role as a teacher and your role as a private citizen. Teachers are also not suppose to endorse one particular political ideology, but I rarely if ever have heard of someone complaining when a teacher has supported either the Republicans or the Democrats while on their own time. If we can make the distinction for non-religious issues, then I hardly see it being a large leap to make a distinction between a teacher's public position and their being a private citizen with regard to religion.

I think the official pledge should be amended as to declare the pledge without "under god" to be as perfectly valid as the pledge with it, but the words themselves I have no issue with. Were I a teacher saying the pledge with my students and one student did not say "under god", I would teach that such a decision should be respected.

I do not believe that either phrase constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't believe that either having "under god" or the national motto "In God We Trust" constitutes endorsing religion or any particular religion.

There have been incidents of athiests crossing out "In God We Trust" on currency and stamping that the line violates the US Constitution. The Federal Reserve reportedly does not pull these altered bills out of circulation and the Secret Service does not consider such actions as being with the intent of making the currency unfit to be reissued. Honestly, I think the Supreme Court would probably rule this to be a "political issue" and say that they have no jurisdiction over the matter.



I really agree the the Ten Commandments should be considered in the light of why they were placed in the public place. A legislature or court displaying the Commandments among other examples of law would be displaying them not for their religious significance, but for their legal significance. If they were the only display allowed, then that would indicate a religious purpose that endorses the Judeo-Christian faiths above others. In other words, the test with regard to the commandments is of motivation, not the document itself.

I think we more or less agree, except on one issue...I'm a guy.

Public property such as parks, and the land around courthouses is just that, public. It belongs to the public (all the public). Refusing any organization the use of land that belongs to them just as much as it belongs to anyone else because they are religious in nature is discriminatory at best and persecution at worst. Persecuting all religions is much the same as persecuting just one. Allowing a church, mosque, temple, etc. to use public property in a peaceful assembly is in absolutely no way endorsing that religion. Offended by religion? Get the right permits and peacefully assemble on public property yourself. No one should stop you simply because you are anti-religion anymore than religions should be stopped.

Does the government endorse the Nazis when they allow them to march down streets (the Nazis organization having aquired the proper permits)? Do they endorse the Republicans or Democrats when they have rallies on public property? The government does not endorse any organization simply by permitting its presence on public property.

I think some atheists are making the lives of public officials much harder than they should be, especially with non-atheists fighting back through their own court actions. People should take care that they don't try to elevate their supposed rights over the rights of anyone else. The courts shouldn't have to deal with cases where one person (using the banner of their own rights) has clearly trampled on the rights of another. The courts should hear cases where the question of where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin are not as clear.

As this was prompted by religious cases (I hope to find a link to a relevant story soon), let's review some facts (especially regarding rights and religion in the US).

1. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say, "Separation of Church and State". The 1st Amendment in fact says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

2. The exercise of religion as a private citizen (be that citizen in public employ or otherwise) is further protected as free speech, press, and assembly. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble".


I think the largest failures among the people that want religion and state to have nothing to do with each other are that they believe in a separation of church and state which can be found absolutely nowhere in the US Constitution and that they fail to recognize that public officials are also private citizens. A teacher is a teacher only during the school day and at school sanctioned events (though not even always if a school has sanctioned participation in an event).

For example, religions should be allowed to assemble on public property (with the right permits) and to participate in festivals on public property. If a teacher's church is hosting a booth at the festival and so is their school, that teacher cannot be barred from participating in their church's booth.


I understand that not all Earthers are American and therefore our Constitution does not apply to all of us. I further welcome the adoption of this debates in terms of the Canadian Constitution or any other constitution.

Not sure when Christ was ever removed from Christmas, but that would seem a rather difficult task as it's CHRISTmas.

Maybe that was grumpy's point. Maybe he's a grumpy extremist Christian seeking to rid the world of athiests.

Of course, that's just a hypothetical. He could just be a really nice guy with no alterior motives, but why take the chance. Some mod should punish him for this.

PS, Merry Christmas Earthers and a Happy New Year too. May your year be filled with cheer and a graduation if your going to be escaping college at the end of next semester.

This sounds like all the internet companies in Chattanooga trying to stop EPB (the Electric Power Board) from offering internet on their fiberoptic network. The Ambassador bridge owners will only delay the inevitable if everything said above is accurate.

Detmer, what I'm saying is that the city as Mr. Lewis's employer should have taken steps to make sure that their employees were aware of information that directly pertained to their jobs. The city (as Mr. Lewis's employer) was negligent in this. Mr. Lewis should not be punished for the city's negligence as his employer. Mr. Lewis was not acting as an individual; he was acting as an employee to a negligent employer.

For the Record, no McDonalds should not be sued for coffee burning people.

I concede Schoenwetter's case, but the others are still at issue to greater or lesser degrees. The sewage case should have been purely civil in nature. The arrowhead case should not have gone to court at all. In the sewer case, Lawrence Lewis thought that the drain went to a proper cleaning facility. He and his coworkers were under this impression. Mr. Lewis's only intent was to help prevent disease among some of the sickest people in his city. The city failed to provide adequate knowledge to Mr. Lewis and so ONLY the city should have been held liable either criminal or civil.

In the arrowhead case, the punishment is excessive, IMO.

Yeah, getting one government agency to sign off on your imports thinking that you're doing everything right is smuggling lobsters alright.

Sorry, but no. The FDA said he was doing what he was suppose to do and then another agency comes in and says that he had to use cardboard instead of plastic, so now he faces charges. Abner Schoenwetter was charged with trading illegally caught lobster. Okay that's fine, but who gets to decide it was illegally caught? In this case, the government of Honduras got to decide whether it was legally caught or not. If Honduras says the lobster was legally caught, then Schoenwetter can't be guilty of trading in illegally caught lobster. Oh wait, I'm forgetting myself; a group of US prosecutors know better than the Attorney General of Honduras whether or not the lobster was illegally caught in Honduras.

What the judge in this case should have done was call the Honduran Attorney General and have a conversation.

Judge to Honduran AG: Was the lobster in this case illegally caught?

Honduran AG: NO.

Judge to US Prosecutors: Do you have any evidence of bribery, coercion, etc. influence the Honduran AG?

US Prosecutors: No.

Judge: Then GET OUT of MY COURTROOM! Case dismissed with prejudice!

http://www.forbes.com/...m-going-to-jail-for-what/

I'm not sure I even need to say anything about this, but I think the US Supreme Court once ruled that prosecutors had a duty to choose when to and when not to prosecute cases. I sure wish some of the ******** (language edited before posting) prosecutors that represent the United States would consent to better management of tax-payer money. We don't need to send people to jail for honest mistakes; we don't even need to prosecute them. Simply educating people about certain laws should be sufficient.

If the US Federal Government is not violating the letter of the US Consitution, they are certainly violating the spirit of it. These prosecutions are examples where the US government is becoming the agent of tyranny it was designed to replace.

Here's a simple solution. Let's make a new federal law: All federal criminal prosecutions of misdemeanor crimes should require "mens rea" (guilty mind) be proven.

http://www.pcmag.com/...le2/0,2817,2388455,00.asp

Not sure what the HP Pavillion DV7-6163us would cost you in Canada, but I have one and it makes for a nice laptop. It's a larger/heavier laptop than most of what's been shown here, but I don't believe the extra size disappoints. If you're not into serious gaming, but want a solid performance for significantly less cost, then this might be a good candidate.

The Beats Audio system really does not disappoint. I had the system going full blast from the front door playing halloween music and you could mostly hear it just fine at the front of the driveway where we were handing out candy.

As the reviews say, you get a lot of the perks of the systems one step above the Pavillion DV7-6163us, but you pay much less.

Quick IRS, Braden's not paying his taxes! Send him away for life!

Canada surrendered to the US 143 years ago. They just agreed to keep the surrender secret.

Canada - Just Another State since 3,000 BC.

Trife, the problem here is two fold.

First, the law is fundamentally wrong. It violates the principles of free speech with no safety concern to counter it.

Second, Joe Gordon was not in Thailand at the time that he committed the "crime"; he was in the United States. He is an American Citizen (not a Thai citizen). In this case, you have Thailand exerting their sovereignty over an American in the United States. Though it's not militarily, you might still consider this an act of war. Thai had no sovereignty and no jurisdiction in this case. Thailand's laws don't apply in the US except to Thai citizens (and potentially Thai nationals).

This case is more like a Dutch citizen coming to the US and then being charged with drug use for a crime that occurred in the Netherlands or a German being charged in the US for going 150 MPH in Germany.

Note to self: don't go to Thailand. I'm sure at some point I have or will insult the Thai Royal Family. Frankly, the law itself is an insult to the royal family as it implies that they are so delicate as to be unable to take criticism like the rest of us have to. Seriously, if they need this law, then I guess that means they think a single insult can overthrow their monarchy. If they think that, then maybe it's not such a terrible thing to insult them once.

Alright, I tried not to outright to request it, but what beer is Omega?

The Omega - dOeMEGA

Name an alliance and what kind of beer they are most like. I'll start:

RD is Berry Weiss (Leinenkugel's): they make no pretensions about what/who they are. They're honest about who they are and their past...and they don't really care if you dislike that part of them. They are also quite a cast of characters. The combination of honesty and flavors make them divisive, you either like them or you don't.

United States of Lobbyists.

<3 MDers.

I on occassion refer to Obama as "President Wish It Think It" as he wishes it were and thinks that it is, so it must be. I don't expect the next US President to fix the problems, I just expect them to not make them any worse.

The real issue is that the federal government is the problem. Unless and until the states take back the power that is rightfully theirs through constitutional convention or otherwise undermining the power that the federal government has garnered, the problem will continue.

What needs to happen via amendment:

1. Removal of the federal government to defense, diplomacy, treasury functions (including the federal reserve), and directly interstate issues (no saying that because an intrastate purchase impacts interstate commerce means it's an interstate issue).
2. Election of US Senators through state legislatures. (Legislatures should by 3/4ths majority vote of their entire legislature be able to recall senators.)
3. Curtail federal interference in other state issues.

Tertius, funny how informed I am and Fox News is my primary source of news. My other main source of news is the Wall Street Journal.

As has been said above, education falls under the jurisdiction and authority of the states. The states decide exactly how much power local authorities have. The US Department of Education can only exercise authority over federal grants and subsidies to schools. School districts and states can opt to not receive federal funding and run their schools how they like.

I agree with those who think that federal funding of education should end. Let the states and local governments fund their schools. People will vote with their feet to attend the best schools in the best states if that's important to parents. We have no need for the US Department of Education.