It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dismantle that system? You have me confused with someone else. I've not said to dismantle it, I've said that if I have to educate my kids myself, then I should not be required to pay for that AND your kids. In other words, if I opt out of your system, I should be allowed to opt out of it, not just half way. See, your argument is that my rights end where yours begin, and I agree with that. The converse is also true, and your rights end where mine begin. Your rights then, do not include the right to insist that I pay for a system that I am forced not to participate in, at your insistence.
Originally posted by sirnex
*sigh*
Everyone, including myself pays into that system. I also pay for other governmental services for your benefit as well, some that I may not want to pay for you to have, but still want to receive myself. You don't see me bitching over a measly few bucks taken out in taxes every week to provide a host of services for you.
Again, let's compile a list of services YOU don't want to pay for but still demand YOU personally receive by the government.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sirnex
You keep pretending that the state of California thinks they have a right to demand I obtain a license to home school my children, and they are so tyrannical about this, they threaten to use Social Services to take my child away from me. Frankly, I don't think you are nearly as stupid as you come across in this thread, I think you're just a troll who believes that all he has to do is keep posting in this thread, and sooner or later those who oppose tyranny will surrender. You couldn't be more wrong. There is not a soul that understands the importance of their inalienable rights, that doesn't see right through your game.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by sirnex
Alright, let's go down the list of services provided by the government that you don't want to pay for others to receive through taxes but still want provided by the government for yourself.
I'm game, if you think you can manage it without resorting to unfounded name calling. I have my doubts about that, but we'll see.
Here's my list of what you specify above:
/end list
Now it's your turn.
You see, NOWHERE have I said that I want government services provided to me that I'm unwilling to pay for. My contention is that if I have to opt out of those services, I should not be required to keep them up for YOU. You should be capable of doing that on your own, or else not require me to opt out.
Originally posted by sirnex
Public schools are funded by taxes. Say it's one specific tax, take away that tax, then they'll move to a different tax making that slightly higher to make up the difference. The only remedy is to take away all taxation, and I'm not sure that's a viable alternative so you can just "opt out".
Now I can't see why taxes can't be pro-rated based on stated use. If I then elected not to avail myself of the state education system, then my taxes could be cut by that amount, with the provision that I not be allowed to opt back IN to that system without a corresponding personal tax increase to cover it.
As a renter, you can put 20 kids into school with no tax burden as you have no property.
Originally posted by SurefireII
reply to post by sirnex
I understand your arguement with neno, but regardless of any options made available to a parent, isnt it the parents decision on whats best for their child? Im a father of two, and I speak from experience, the public school system where Im at rates #2 for the highest failure rate. Isnt it my choice to do whats best for my child, even though there is public school made available? Regardless of what you or anyone says, for every action is a reaction. Thus suggesting the whole taxation issue on public schools or the lack there of.
You both bring valid points to the table, and I commend you both, but in the end, its the persons right to make a decision regardless of topic that best suits them~
Whatever happened of being a good person for the sake of being a good person?
Originally posted by sirnex
Yes, it is your choice and your more than free to exercise your choice, the government is not stopping anyone from doing so as these folk are attempting to imply and argue. If your district ranks low, you can do as I did and move to a better district. You can get on a committee and personally have a say in the curriculum. You can home school or hire someone and use your own curriculum. You can send your children to a private school that has a curriculum you approve of, etc.
Their argument is that the government forces you to go to public school and/or enforces a certain standardized curriculum, which is no where near what really is occurring here.
All they're doing is using this thread to air their grievances of their own faults because they oppress themselves by their own laziness and own choosing to not pursue available options while BS-ing me that they 'oh so value' their childrens education. Point of fact is, if they actually truly did value their childrens education as much as they are BS-ing me, they wouldn't be on a web forum BS-ing me and would instead be pursuing every available option that does indeed exist regardless of their hatreds towards government.
Yes, the choice is ours - assuming we can afford the costs imposed by the government on that choice. If we can't then the choice is indeed the government's, and no longer in our hands.
The notion of an enforced standard curriculum comes from my wife's attempts to home school the kids, which I had to veto out of, among other things, economic considerations. Not sure where she got that from, but she insisted it was the case. She died a couple of years ago, and so can't tell me where she got it from, and in all honesty, it's not worth all the digging to find out just to win an argument. She insisted it was so, and I can't really imagine teaching anything without teaching anything, so I never really questioned the veracity of that.
Another reason I vetoed the notion is that it lacked a sufficient socialization component. I think it's a GOOD thing for kids to learn early on how to deal with fools and adversity, both of which are found in abundance in the public school system. I saw no reason that I couldn't add actual education on top of that myself, and not have to worry about meeting the curricula requirements.
In short, I can teach them what they need to know without having to go to the expense of setting up a state approved home school AND paying to keep up the state supported public school, by sending them to the public school for their hard knocks education, and teaching them what they need to know myself, without having the state nanny supervise it.
This and all of the rest of your post is accusatory histrionics and bluster, unworthy of reply, so I'll leave you to it.
Originally posted by sirnex
Originally posted by SurefireII
reply to post by sirnex
I understand your arguement with neno, but regardless of any options made available to a parent, isnt it the parents decision on whats best for their child? Im a father of two, and I speak from experience, the public school system where Im at rates #2 for the highest failure rate. Isnt it my choice to do whats best for my child, even though there is public school made available? Regardless of what you or anyone says, for every action is a reaction. Thus suggesting the whole taxation issue on public schools or the lack there of.
You both bring valid points to the table, and I commend you both, but in the end, its the persons right to make a decision regardless of topic that best suits them~
Yes, it is your choice and your more than free to exercise your choice, the government is not stopping anyone from doing so as these folk are attempting to imply and argue. If your district ranks low, you can do as I did and move to a better district. You can get on a committee and personally have a say in the curriculum. You can home school or hire someone and use your own curriculum. You can send your children to a private school that has a curriculum you approve of, etc.
Their argument is that the government forces you to go to public school and/or enforces a certain standardized curriculum, which is no where near what really is occurring here. All they're doing is using this thread to air their grievances of their own faults because they oppress themselves by their own laziness and own choosing to not pursue available options while BS-ing me that they 'oh so value' their childrens education. Point of fact is, if they actually truly did value their childrens education as much as they are BS-ing me, they wouldn't be on a web forum BS-ing me and would instead be pursuing every available option that does indeed exist regardless of their hatreds towards government.
In closing, yes you do have a choice and yes you are really actually free to make that choice. At the end of the day however, taxes are taxes and our taxes are not itemized in a way where we can simply opt out of what we don't want to pay for. This is the government and system the American people voted for and if someone doesn't like that, they can petition and vote for a change rather than spending their time on ATS crying like little girls about their own ineptitude.
[edit]
I'm sorry; I forgot to add this when I hit reply. These folk talk about self accountability and responsibility whilst hypocritically placing such blame on the government by pretending it forces them to use public schools and has taken away all other options from them. It is simply sad to see someone go to such lengths as they have to take the blame off themselves and place it upon someone else. They have no lick of understanding as to what self accountability and responsibility truly is with that course of action and I find it disgusting that they have to stoop so low to make themselves feel better for their own failings and personal oppressions.
[edit on 2-6-2010 by sirnex]
I see your point, and I have to agree with you in the respect that we should as americans be able to opt out if we should choose to. ie..social security ( which probably wont be around when you or i need it) taxes in general that dont support my needs etc. Thanks for clarifying, absolutely spot on!
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Ok, we will cover this one time. I do not have patience for someone who feigns stupidity as a debate tactic.
This whole debate is a first amendment debate. Since we established that the intention of the writers of the first amendment was not what the supreme court interpreted, based on their own writings, then the constitutional matter was put to rest.
The only other matter left to dispute, then, would be states laws.
That is how the system works. So we further established that Tennessee state law does not forbid it. In fact, it does the opposite.
I do not want to be forced to reiterate pieces of conversation that you participated in.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It was YOUR hypothetical. I never claimed to understand anything about it.
I gave you a sarcastic response, for the most part.
You missed that.
I then told you that it was a sarcastic response, due to being silly enough to warrant such, and you STILL don't get it?
It got an answer worthy of the question: half hearted and off the cuff.
I will not rehash what has been rehashed.
Persistance of insistance is not proving anything. I would say you jabs at sexual performance betray the tenuous position you find yourself in.
Here is your real answer: that has nothing to do with the topic. It is comparing apples and bumper brackets. Quit trying to use logical fallacies. I am not that stupid.