My parents didn't get any vouchers and I know they paid a lot to send me to a catholic school (I had to take the payments to school and I checked them out) So it is possible.

But if your parents were not using the public school system that they were paying taxes for then why shouldn't they have been able to take some of that money to send you to a school of their choosing ?

Yes some parents can afford it ;but many can't . My sister in Jacksonville took her children out of their school district to home school because the system there sucks and it is dangerous for children. She can't afford private school but she is paying for the public school system regardless .

I actually agree with your point that if you send your kid to a private/catholic school you should not have to pay taxes for public school (or at least pay a little less).

I used that argument when 8th grade finished and my parents wanted to send me to a catholic high school. I told them you are paying for the public school now so just send me there and the money you save from not sending me to a catholic school you can get me a car. I never got that car.

Just as long as you have no problem with parents getting money to send their kids to Islamic schools tom?

I agree that school districts should be teaching the kids not to pick and make fun of people because of their sexual choices.
** although kids up till high school should not be sexual anythingg, and I could argue about the high school ones.

But they should also be teaching them not to make fun of Christians, not make fun of nerds, or girls or fat people, or people with funny accents and so on.

You're against teaching same sex relationships in school so you want it banned. What about the parents that are all for it?

You can't please everyone.

If you don't like what your child's school is teaching then find a school that teaches your values.

Problem solved.

If they pay their school taxes then no I have no problem with it . Where I live there is a large Orthodox Jewish community that pays taxes but besides bus services get no other benefit for their school taxes and do not get vouchers. Since they don't ;they are active in the school board and vote in block to vote down the budget . The system is unfair to both them and the rest of the people in the district.

But I argue this more on the grounds that the system now is inequitable. Wealthy parents can choose any school they want for their kids; middle class parents often move to suburbs where better public schools exist; the poor, however, may be left to fend for themselves and restricted to dysfunctional public schools without any choice.

I note again that the Obama's are sending their children to the finest private school in Washington. Michelle Obama went to Bouchet Academy and Whitney Young High School .Justice Sonya Sotomayor is the product of private Catholic School education. The narrative that is told of her families climb from poverty cannot be accurately told without an acknowledgement of the role private schooling played.

Get this, PUBLIC schools. Taxpayer dollars. The same area where all those people throw a fit that any sort of religious (Christian that is) value might cross a student's path want to force feed our children GLBT values without allowing parents to opt out? What about all the parents that WANT prayer or bible courses in school?

Problem solved? You say that as if it's just easy as pie. What about those who can't afford it, have to work two jobs to make ends meet, single parents and every other poor soul who can't get a voucher to do something different? Is that your idea of being sensitive to the needs of poor families who work their butts off to provide a meager existence and raise their children with their values - suck it up and accept our agenda or just go somewhere else? Is the agenda more important than a real education, more important than the family itself?

If they are poor it's only because they aren't working hard enough. America is the land of freedom and opportunity. No handouts.

/republican mantra

Which of us has ever said "If they are poor it's only because they aren't working hard enough?" Which of us has ever said "no handouts?" Would you care to address the actual topic?

Isn't a poor republican kind of an oxy-moron?

I'm sorry. But do you not let your children watch TV either? Do you not let your Children play with other children? They talk about thigs like this, and yes I think they should be educated. No point in letting more people in this country become ignorant. They should be taught tolerance in school, of everything; like I stated before.

Do you really believe all Republicans are rich? What was that you said about ignorance? This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. 7 out of 10 blacks voted for Prop 8 to ban gay marriage in California, how many of those do you suppose were Republicans?

Tolerance of everything? Surely you have exceptions.

As much as a rich Democrat I suppose and we all know there are plenty of them.

Hello again, tom:

At least we don't support tax cuts for 'em. I STILL don't know what your love affair with the rich is all about.

excon

Ex I never worked for a poor dude.

Well I guess you don't volunteer much or at all.

Quibbling again ? I don't consider my volunteer time as work .

A couple of points.

1) Why do we need to be accepting of everyone. I know that this is the "accepted wisdom", but is it true? Do we need to be accepting of those who would have sex with children? After all, if you ask NAMBLA, having sex with kids is just another lifestyle choice. According to your statement, all such lifestyle choices are equal, and should all be accepted? So I question this bit of "accepted wisdom". Do we really need to be accepting of "everyone"? Because I most certainly do not accept everyone equally. I don't accept everyone and everything. I freely admit that I descriminate... not based on skin color or race, but based on right and wrong, good and evil, success and failure. I do not accept everyone and everything equally. And neither should you.

2) Not being a Christian, I can't really answer for them. However, I AM a religious Orthodox Jew, and I can tell you that there is good reason to judge some people. For instance, Osama bin Laden... is he "just the same" as everyone else? Should we not judge his actions and come to the conclusion that he is wrong and evil? How about Sadam Hussein? He murdered millions of his own people and millions of Iranians with poison gas. Is he "just the same as everyone else"?

On the other side of the fence... Was Mother Teresa the same as everyone else, or was she an extraordinarily loving, charitable, self-sacrificing person who should be viewed as something over and above the norm? How about Mahatma Gandhi? Was a man who was willing to sacrifice his life for peace at all costs "just the same as everyone else"?

We need to have value judgements... based on our moral values. Not everyone is the same, and not everyone should be judged the same.

3) "And parent should tell their children there are non-traditional families."

YES... A PARENT. Not some school teacher or administrator with a political agenda. It is MY decision what to tell my children about "alternative familites", not the school system's decision. And if I wish to tell my children that I do not accept "alternative families" (read: gay couples) as the same as traditional families, THAT IS MY CHOICE AND MY RIGHT, and that right is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is NOT within the government's authority to override my personal teachings to my children with their own.

4) I am against sex education within the school system. I am against it because it is an abrogation of my rights and responsibilities as a parent. I am all for PARENTS teaching their kids about sex. That is part of the job of a parent. I am against it being taught by the school system, especially when what the schools are teaching is contrary to what I am teaching my children.

So in answer to your question, I'm not against sex ed. I'm against sex ed being taught by the school system. It should be taught by me to my children and by you to your children.

As a currently unemployed conservative going through a divorce, with virtually no money in the bank, I find that to be a very insulting comment.

There are quite a few conservatives suffering from Obama's economic policies through the loss of assets, jobs and income sources, and I'm one of them. In fact, I would venture to argue that most of the GM bondholders who got screwed out of their life savings yesterday are conservative financial investors.

Actually, no, my kids don't watch TV. They are 8 and 7, and they have discovered these things called BOOKS that are much more entertaining than TV. And they spend time outdoors. In fact, most of the children in my kids' schools don't watch TV... they go to very religious Yeshiva schools where it is common for there to be no TVs in the homes of the children. And you know what? The kids get along just fine without TV.


Differently cultures do things differently. My kids play with other Orthodox Jewish kids, and somehow, issues involving sex just don't seem to have come up in their conversations with their peers.

So do I. At the proper time. With the parents being the educators, not the schools.

The only ignorance I see is the idea that "everyone is equal". That is about as ignorant an idea as has ever been put forward by anyone.

Here's a clue... gay people cannot have children on their own without the help of a third party. Therefore, they are NOT equal in the biological sense. I'm not talking about morality, just biology. They are DIFFERENT in that they cannot reproduce. This is a quantifiable difference between gay couples and straight couples, and it is a difference that cannot be denied. The idea that they are the same is an attempt to ignore a basic fact of biology.

Not everything is tolerable or should be tolerated.

Should we tolerate terrorism?

Should we tolerate criminal behavior?

Should we tolerate breaking the law?

There are those who would argue that terrorists are just people who have a different cultural viewpoint than us, that criminals have just been given a bad break in life.

I do not tolerate criminal activity, and I believe that anyone who does is a fool. So why are you preaching blind "tolerance" or anything and everything? Don't you have eyes to tell you what these people are doing, and a heart that says that some things are wrong and must be eliminated?

In fact you do feel that. You believe that our "intolerance" is wrong, and you want it eliminated. THat is a moral value judgement... and a sign that there are certain things that YOU will not tolerate, like intolerance.

That's the paradox, isn't it. If you are against those who, like me, are considered intolerant, you are not being very tolerant of another viewpoint. If you accept our viewpoint, you are tolerating intolerance, which makes you a supporter of intolerance. It's a catch .22 brought on by a position that is logically untennable.

Best instead to admit that you are making a value judgement and based on that value judgement you are intolerant of those who are intolerant... which makes you no different from us conservatives. The only difference is in what you are willing to be intollerant about.

Elliot

Are you aware of the fact that there are 60% more millionaires who identify as Democrats and Liberals than Republicans or Conservatives? That's from a poll taken in 2006 and published by Quinipiac, I think (I'm sure about the year, not so sure about the polling agency).

I think you should check your facts before you post comments like that.