Madeline
Rookie
- Apr 20, 2010
- 18,505
- 1,867
There are so many things wrong with his statements that I don't even know where to begin criticizing them.
Maybe that is because you are "comfortably numb". Teachers are role models. If they want to display behaviors that are against the taxpayers' (parents') beliefs or morals, they should not be supported by tax dollars. If they want to run their own schools and display those behaviors, go for it! Use free enterprise to push your beliefs, not my tax dollars.
Lets see, I don't know where to begin with the so many things wrong in your statements............sigh.
Comfortably numb = Accepts people for who and what they are.
Teachers Role Models = No, that is your mommy slaving on her knees for some executive at work.
Taxpayers are not against gay or singles behaviors. Phtttt!
Run their own school = No they want to run the public schools & don't give a fuck if you like it or not!! LOL!
Don't use my tax dollars = Sorry, we might make an American out of you yet......... LMAO!!
Comfortably numb was in the icon. To me, it means, I tolerate evil and will do nothing to stop it.
If the teacher has authority over the student, the teacher is a role model.
I never said that taxpayers were against " gay or singles behaviors". I suggested there were appropriate places for that behavior.
Yes, I know they want to run "public" schools. That might explain why more people are home-schooling their children. They don't want their children being taught "immorality" and atheism religion at school.
I made a suggestion that those behaviors could be tried in the "free-market" for a school that promoted that type of behavior. Obviously, there is no one here that thinks that type of behavior would be searched out for a price. That would imply the only way to "force exposure" to students is by using public funds to push an immoral agenda.[/QUOTE]
This is just despicable. I cannot read any more of this shit.