Would you rather the youth be fashionable or intelligent? Not wearing uniforms distracts from the task at hand, which is education.

OK, I understand more where you're coming from now. I just find it difficult to wrap my mind around the concept of something always being in existence and having no start or stop time.

I do agree with you that it is good to get the basics of a lot of different languages. However, I do believe that every student should know another language at least proficiently. Realistically, being a "jack of all trades" in language can't get you as far as being specialized in one or two. Also, I think the retention rate of the material learned in school is a student-by-student things. The students that want to retain more will, the ones who don;t want to won;t.

Theoretically though, isn't it impossible that something has always existed and always will exist? Or, I guess maybe just impossible to wrap the mind around.

EDIT: You also argued that

you think the uncreated existance of an already all-powerful complex and intelligent being which has never been observed is as likely as the uncreated existance of forces, which at the least are mathematically possible and despite that we observe forces every day?

How can you argue against one person theory of creation while citing a more "matematicallly sound" idea of creation, when at the same time you are arguing that it is presumptuous to assume that we were ever created in the first place?

I don't know that I would call myself a deist necessarily. I believe in a higher power who expects people to live their lives to the fullest and to love one another and be compassionate and so on. I think this this higher power puts the earth into balance. I, however, do not believe that this higher power really controls the way people live or act. So I guess I could be called a deist, but it would be a little bit of a stretch.

EDIT: Upon further reading into deism, I guess it wouldn't be that much of a strech really. I am however, very open when it comes to religion, and my views change often as I hear new arguments.

The existence of a theory and the existence of a concept are two very different things. Concepts can be applied and be proved to be true based upon their application. Theories, however cannot really be applied, but rather observed, or assumed.

I was an exchange student in Romania for a year, and I'm almost completely positive I know more about the country than any book could tell you. When you travel, you experience everything, which stays with you a lot longer than anything you just read in a book.

Well of course no concept can ever be tangible. What I'm saying is that if a concept has real application, is that not enough "evidence" to make the concept be considered "concrete" in the sense that through use of the concept, tangible things can be created?

I think it could be argued that mathematics is indeed concrete, or at least, its not entirely abstract. I refer especially to more specific applications of mathematic priciples such as those of geometry and trigonometry, which are present in almost everything you see or can call "concrete".

This would infringe upon our first amendment rights. Although the bill has what I guess could be seen as "good" intentions, like everything in politics, it would eventually get out of control. With the bill in place, the government would easily be able to block any site they felt like , even if that wasn't the original intent of the bill. In government, things are always taken to the extreme.