archie bunker Loc: Texas

Your school examples are quite fine in my opinion.
When I was in High School, I wanted to take an Agriculture class that wasn't offered at my school. I was allowed to travel to the nearby school where it was offered for just that one class.
I also think that trade classes should be offered in schools as well.
We don't all share the same interests, or sk**l sets.

3507

There will never be laws sufficient to address all the little loopholes or various unfairnesses that unscrupulous individuals can dream up. Nor should there be; the system of laws shouldn't be endlessly complicated. We do need laws, but we also need an additional concept, which I call "fairness" or "fair play" or decency, and accountability to behave reasonably.

I guess some people would think that the Senate leader deliberately denying the Merrick Garland nomination a hearing, for a really long time until it's effectively never, would be fair, or that fairness is irrelevant. I haven't heard anyone actually address that specific point, except the people who think it's _unfair_. The remainder of the people seem to be side-stepping the question, and it seems that it doesn't bother _them_ to have a Senate leader who behaves that way. Maybe they have no standard of behavior at all, except wh**ever it takes to get what they want. You've claimed the law as a kind of standard, but I'm saying that mere legality is not sufficient as a standard of behavior.

And, regarding laws: Laws aren't even always good laws. Somebody has to have some higher standard to compare them to: something beyond mere legality. That's how we can decide which laws we want Congress to enact or to repeal or to revise. There has to be some kind of "why" behind it all; and one word, to try to capture that concept, is "fairness".

With such a concept in mind, one can look at expanding the size of the Supreme Court (a legal thing Congress can do) (which I think might be a good idea), or one can look at denying the Merrick Garland nomination a hearing for almost a year until the nomination expires (which may also be technically "legal", I suppose) (and I think it was a terrible thing to do), and form an idea of whether we want our elected officials to behave that way, and hold them accountable to a standard of behavior which goes beyond the mere technicalities of legality. I believe it's also legal for a president to cause atomic bombs to be dropped all over the world, on a whim. Would you want Biden to do that? If it's legal, then what argument could you possibly have against it?

American Vet

We can never achieve what all persons would consider a 'satisfactory outcome'.

As you note, people are not the same. The boy talented in music is certainly free to try and play football - and the football player can try out for the orchestra. Let their ability/drive take them where they want.

As far as the 'budget' issue - that is ultimately decided by the v**ers. (Title IX is an example of this).

You make several good points: However, to me, equal remains supreme.

Cuda2020

Your post was an example of an attitude that I used, it's as simple as that, sorry you had a problem with that. It was your statement was it not? And that's your t***h, within your perception and it is a lowly one, no high bar there, nothing to aspire to. It was on an open forum, where you posted, I assumed you'd see it and what does that matter, it matters little to nothing.

No soap box at all, you're experienced? That's a bit open ended. LOL

This has nothing to do with being politically correct, it does have to do with our integrity and how we choose to function but you seemed to have missed that.

Cuda2020

Very true.

The Ms.

You!!! Have no integrity and couldn’t even spell it with out Mr Google…. Let alone educate others!

kemmer

‘Without’ is one word, sweets.

EmilyD

Single quotation marks are used to indicate quotations inside of other quotations, dearie.

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Good one!

Cuda2020

Nah, I'm not you, your ego and insecurity make you miss the point again which is amazing, should we go for three out of three?
Now you're being an emotional female with nothing more then a petty insult instead of being all grown up and getting what I'm saying, so let me ask you directly, why do you think I commented on your statement as being unevolved?

Do you really think the attitude of our governing should be...your quote: "Whoever said politics was Fair! Definition of screw or be screwed!!!!".

Or should we aspire to be better then that?

Cuda2020

I believe you've just committed a cardinal sin, shame on you, as we know how grammatically correct everyone's posts are on here.

Cuda2020

Treating people fairly and equally can be achieved by the law, socially is another matter, as long as we feed the social classes and our egos that's never going to happen, maybe in the after life.

The Ms.

Best you can do…. I had to give you something superficial to point to! Take a break!

The Ms.

Thanks…. Too funny🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍

The Ms.

First , don’t you worry about my Ego…. If it’s a problem, it is my problem!

Good job on resorting to the “Emotional Female” fallback when you can’t hold your own! I may be lots of things but you are barking up the wrong tree with that old standby.

And I Resent you calling my well thought out insults petty!!!!

My statement on “ politics being a game of screw or be screwed” was me stating a FACT based on history starting with Obama who blew up the little civility that was present in politics!

And if you want to cry about Garland then know it’s justified after what Dems did to Bork and Clarence Thomas! The left keeps forgetting that they are mere mortals subject to that damn Fair Law of Karma!!!

Finally, I am Politically Incorrect by design …… I just call it like I see it!
I do not make the rules…..however, I do my best to break the Stupid ones!