Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 I am not a number, I am a free man!Not in this country, you ain't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 11, 2008 Not in this country, you ain't! You can't even home school your kids in California. With that darn librul activist panel of judges out there, our children are being held hostage by a bunch of neo-commies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 You can't even home school your kids in California. With that darn librul activist panel of judges out there, our children are being held hostage by a bunch of neo-commies. It's too hard to indoctrinate the kids if they're being taught by their parents. Gotta get them into the classroom where they can learn about liberalism and how to advance it.C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 You can't even home school your kids in California. With that darn librul activist panel of judges out there, our children are being held hostage by a bunch of neo-commies. Nonsense. That ruling is directly in line with Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy, which requires that all teachers are qualified and meet certain standards. Why should home-schooling parents be exempted from laws governing teacher qualifications? Has nothing to do with the liberal - conservative axis at all, has to do with quality of education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 Nonsense. That ruling is directly in line with Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy, which requires that all teachers are qualified and meet certain standards. Why should home-schooling parents be exempted from laws governing teacher qualifications? Has nothing to do with the liberal - conservative axis at all, has to do with quality of education. Well, personally I don't think the government should be educating our kids, but that's a whole different subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 11, 2008 Nonsense. That ruling is directly in line with Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy, which requires that all teachers are qualified and meet certain standards. Why should home-schooling parents be exempted from laws governing teacher qualifications? Has nothing to do with the liberal - conservative axis at all, has to do with quality of education.I see you didn't get the sarcasm of my post, because I regularly misspell liberal and use the term neo-commie as often as possible in my postings. It's so easy to get your dander up, bholder. As a correction, the ruling had zip to do with NCLB and everything to do with the laws of the State of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 Well, personally I don't think the government should be educating our kids, but that's a whole different subject. So education should be privatized, and therefore kids from poor families just don't get to go? Someone's got to pay the teachers to teach. I agree, though, that's a different argument entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 I see you didn't get the sarcasm of my post, because I regularly misspell liberal and use the term neo-commie as often as possible in my postings. It's so easy to get your dander up, bholder. As a correction, the ruling had zip to do with NCLB and everything to do with the laws of the State of California. I know exactly what you're doing, and responding with intent. My dander isn't up a bit. I also know the grounds for the ruling - true, it was not based on NCLB, but it is utterly consistent with it, while allowing home-schooling by parents unqualified as teachers is not. Bush wants to be hard on the teachers, but parents automatically get a pass with no qualifications or measurements at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 Erm, yes, I was. I used that exact same line in a couple of other threads OK - my bad... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 11, 2008 I also know the grounds for the ruling - true, it was not based on NCLB, but it is utterly consistent with it, while allowing home-schooling by parents unqualified as teachers is not. Bush wants to be hard on the teachers, but parents automatically get a pass with no qualifications or measurements at all?Of course you would use any ruling that didn't have to do with Bush to bash him, because he's controlled California law since 1953. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 Of course you would use any ruling that didn't have to do with Bush to bash him, because he's controlled California law since 1953. Sigh, you're not even reading what I'm writing, and for once, I'm not even really bashing Bush here. I quite understand Bush and NCLB have nothing to do with California law, I said that already. I'm pointing out a consistency issue with two related conservative positions. You guys are essentially arguing that home-schoolers deserve a special exemption from NCLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 11, 2008 Sigh, you're not even reading what I'm writing, and for once, I'm not even really bashing Bush here. I quite understand Bush and NCLB have nothing to do with California law, I said that already. I'm pointing out a consistency issue with two related conservative positions. You guys are essentially arguing that home-schoolers deserve a special exemption from NCLB.There's nothing inconsistent about it. NCLB is specifically for schools that receive federal money. Since the home schooled don't receive 8-10% of their budget from the Federal government, those specific guidelines of NCLB do not pertain to them. But again, the case has nothing to do with NCLB. If it did the same case would come before Illinois, Iowa and New York. The case precedent was even a California specific decision, many years before NCLB was even a thought in Shrub's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted March 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted March 11, 2008 Not in this country, you ain't! Not since Jan. 28, 2005 when my boy was born. Until Jan. 28, 2023, I'll be under the gov't's thumb for whatever purposes they see fit. I love my little dude and wouldn't trade him for freedom, but it is bull{censored} nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 So education should be privatized, and therefore kids from poor families just don't get to go? Someone's got to pay the teachers to teach. I agree, though, that's a different argument entirely. The running and administration of it yes. I don't really have a huge issue with it being funded with tax dollars...I have a huge issue with how ineffective public schools are. Well, they're not really "public" schools, they're government schools. But fund them with tax dollars. For the high falluting private schools, let the rich kids parents pay the difference. Increase competition and you will increase performance across the board. No more teachers union. Make teachers actually perform if they want to keep their jobs and/or get raises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 No more teachers union. Right to work is one thing, eliminating unions is another...That would just be substituting one outside restriction of the market for another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 Right to work is one thing, eliminating unions is another...That would just be substituting one outside restriction of the market for another... Not really. In a real free-market, unions are not needed. Nor are they required by law. And it will make it 100 times easier to replace ineffecteve/incompetent teachers. do well, they will pay to keep you. don't and they will show you the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 The running and administration of it yes. I don't really have a huge issue with it being funded with tax dollars...I have a huge issue with how ineffective public schools are.Well, they're not really "public" schools, they're government schools.But fund them with tax dollars. For the high falluting private schools, let the rich kids parents pay the difference. Increase competition and you will increase performance across the board.No more teachers union. Make teachers actually perform if they want to keep their jobs and/or get raises. I actually agree with some of what you say here, but not the "let the rich kids parents pay the difference" bit. I have a real issue with any public education tax money going to private schools at all, unless those private schools are restricted in what they're allowed to teach. Public education money from taxpayers should not be allowed to pay for religious indoctrination or the teaching of anti-science religious beliefs as "science". If some parents want to send their child to a private school and no government control over what gets taught to that child, no public taxpayer funds should be spent, the parents should have to foot the entire bill themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 I actually agree with some of what you say here, but not the "let the rich kids parents pay the difference" bit. I have a real issue with any public education tax money going to private schools at all, unless those private schools are restricted in what they're allowed to teach. Public education money from taxpayers should not be allowed to pay for religious indoctrination or the teaching of anti-science religious beliefs as "science". If some parents want to send their child to a private school and no government control over what gets taught to that child, no public taxpayer funds should be spent, the parents should have to foot the entire bill themselves. I can live with that. Charter schools have restrictions as it is, so no real difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 Not really. In a real free-market, unions are not needed. Nor are they required by law. And it will make it 100 times easier to replace ineffecteve/incompetent teachers.do well, they will pay to keep you. don't and they will show you the door. False. Disallowing the right to collective bargaining is just as wrong as disallowing the right to work (requiring union membership), and a real free-market simply does not work. Period. It's always willing to sacrifice the long term general good for short non-general gain, and allows destructive actions to be taken which simply cannot be recovered from later (this is more in context of what a free market allows in terms of long-term environmental damage, which I know you don't believe in despite the evidence, but it applies here, too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 I can live with that.Charter schools have restrictions as it is, so no real difference. Interesting - I wouldn't've thought you'd agree. What really ticks me off in this arena is when the subject of vouchers comes up - people who feel strongly for them are almost always the ones who want to be able to spend public money to have their children taught according to their religion rather than objective scientific principle - I've seen instances on both ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum, and they both piss me off. If that's to be allowed, I, as a taxpayer, should be allowed to opt out of funding education. I believe in public funding of public education, but taking money out of the public system to fund private education is dangerous and destructive on many levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 False. Disallowing the right to collective bargaining is just as wrong as disallowing the right to work (requiring union membership) Indeed... In a true free market, people are allowed to organize however they see fit. Whether that organization is a corporation (collective management) or a union (collective employees)...Such organizational structures are neither compelled nor prohibited... It's ironic that you say they're not "required by law", because in a real free market there are no regulatory laws at all...Laws and regulation is what moves it away from being "free" Any restriction on the manner in which people conduct their business is a move away from the free market.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 Indeed...In a true free market, people are allowed to organize however they see fit. Whether that organization is a corporation (collective management) or a union (collective employees)...Such organizational structures are neither compelled nor prohibited...It's ironic that you say they're not "required by law", because in a real free market there are no regulatory laws at all...Laws and regulation is what moves it away from being "free"Any restriction on the manner in which people conduct their business is a move away from the free market.... And the laws and regulations are there because even Congress knows that a true, absolutely free market is not beneficial to society. I'm not saying each and every of the laws and regulations are beneficial, it's a real mess, with lots of counterproductive elements, but a totally free market is complete chaos and utterly destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 And the laws and regulations are there because even Congress knows that a true, absolutely free market is not beneficial to society. I'm not saying each and every of the laws and regulations are beneficial, it's a real mess, with lots of counterproductive elements, but a totally free market is complete chaos and utterly destructive. I didn't say otherwise The old idea is that the "Free market" is necessarily the "most competitive market"...However, history has shown us otherwise. I definitely recognize the place for governmental regulation. Much like rules allow a sporting match to take place, government regulation, when done properly, can increase competition within the market... Competition is almost always a positive. It's competition that ensures the best products, it's competition that rewards innovation and effort. The Free market & government regulations are only beneficial if they increase competition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted March 11, 2008 Members Share Posted March 11, 2008 I didn't say otherwise I know, I'm just taunting Juggs. You know, I just noticed - it's funny how, when a somewhat civil and at least semi-intelligent discussion somehow manages to break out on here, certain other parties are suddenly nowhere to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 I know, I'm just taunting Juggs. You know, I just noticed - it's funny how, when a somewhat civil and at least semi-intelligent discussion somehow manages to break out on here, certain other parties are suddenly nowhere to be found. I'm still here, I'm just waiting for an opportunity to say something crass. You assclowns are talking about school vouchers, who am I supposed to jump on about {censored}ing school vouchers?C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.