Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Parents have the right to decide what's best for their children.
What do you care if someone else's kid is home schooled?
No actually they don't.
Hallaluleah.
Please send me the name and address of the responsible authority for my children so I may deliver them ASAP.
No actually they don't.
Hallaluleah.
Please send me the name and address of the responsible authority for my children so I may deliver them ASAP.
Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?
Do you have that right?
You are shallow, yes. You do not have hard numbers to support your opinion.
Let me see if I can match: I know you are but what am I.It was a stretch to keep up with you, but somehow I managed.
You get the same and you cry.Oh, well.
Samson writes, "Yeah, always stimulating to respond to your 'posts.'"
You'll live.
Samson writes, "Yeah, always stimulating to respond to your 'posts.'"
You'll live.
True, no one ever died of boredom, or drivil.
Hallaluleah.
Please send me the name and address of the responsible authority for my children so I may deliver them ASAP.
Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?
Do you have that right?
I have the right to pick one or the other.
Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.
Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?
Do you have that right?
I have the right to pick one or the other.
Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.
Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.
I have the right to pick one or the other.
Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.
Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.
No, you said, twice, You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children.
This is untrue.
Then you said,
You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you
This is true.
I have noticed you have an interesting habit of mixing hyperbolie into fact, then declaring the entire statement fact. Do you work for FNC or MSNBC?
when a parent home schools a child to a pack of lies instead of reality that is child abuse.
some parents care MORE about their own ideas than teaching their child how to think for themselves
I will admit to s small degree of extreme hyperbolic exaggeration in my post.
Maybe a tad extreme, but only a tad.
The fact is, the ONLY reason for the government to resist allowing a voucher program is to make sure the government institution gets the money instead of some private or parochial school. .
No, I'm afraid I disagree. Not that I'm pleased about it.......
The reason voucher systems may be "harmful" is in areas like, well, Albequerque, NM, and anywhere else there is a large disparity of wealth distribution between races. Essentially this includes every city in America.
It all has to do with HOW kids are TRANSPORTED to school once they are given vouchers.
Remember the voucher allows the parent to pay for all, or part of the school cost (tuition) but what about transportation? A bus cannot arrive at the neighborhood busstop, then leave to deposite kids at 50 different schools.
It is up to the parents to TRANSPORT the kid to school, which costs something. Whatever this cost is, it will represent much less a burden for rich parents than for poor parents. Thus, with vouchers, you have effectively segregated the "rich-kid" school, and horror-of-horrors, segregated them racially.
Hey, I'm only the messenger.
Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?
Do you have that right?
I have the right to pick one or the other.
Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.
Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.
I have the right to pick one or the other.
Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.
Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.
The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have. There is even room to discuss whether the government can mandate compulsory education at all. But if we allow that to be the national policy, and the social contract seems to be okay with that, how can we embrace both freedom AND a government that will dictate how and what and where our children will be taught and give the parents no say whatsoever in that?
Why should the policy not be that children will have the opportunity to be exposed to X amount of education in X subjects, and leave it to the parents of those children to determine how that will be accomplished?
Would that not better meet the spirit of the Constitution that intended the people to be free and out from under the thumb and dictates of an authoritarian government?
I have the right to pick one or the other.
Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.
Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.
No, you said, twice, You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children.
This is untrue.
Then you said,
You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you
This is true.
I have noticed you have an interesting habit of mixing hyperbolie into fact, then declaring the entire statement fact. Do you work for FNC or MSNBC?
Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.
The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have. There is even room to discuss whether the government can mandate compulsory education at all. But if we allow that to be the national policy, and the social contract seems to be okay with that, how can we embrace both freedom AND a government that will dictate how and what and where our children will be taught and give the parents no say whatsoever in that?
Why should the policy not be that children will have the opportunity to be exposed to X amount of education in X subjects, and leave it to the parents of those children to determine how that will be accomplished?
Would that not better meet the spirit of the Constitution that intended the people to be free and out from under the thumb and dictates of an authoritarian government?
Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?
The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have. There is even room to discuss whether the government can mandate compulsory education at all. But if we allow that to be the national policy, and the social contract seems to be okay with that, how can we embrace both freedom AND a government that will dictate how and what and where our children will be taught and give the parents no say whatsoever in that?
Why should the policy not be that children will have the opportunity to be exposed to X amount of education in X subjects, and leave it to the parents of those children to determine how that will be accomplished?
Would that not better meet the spirit of the Constitution that intended the people to be free and out from under the thumb and dictates of an authoritarian government?
Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?
Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.
The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.
Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.
Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?
Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.
The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.
Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.
To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,
at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.
To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.
