Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where did I say those should be illegal? (That would increase the size of the government)
I would encourage those "teachers" to start their own school. It would demonstrate how many parents would "pay" to have their children "exposed" to people that choose to live a less moral lifestyle.
Guessing by the amount of negative feedback, some of you feel that the schools are a great experiment to be conducted on other people's children, and not an institution that focuses on reading, writing, and arithmetic. How does "exposing" children to distractive lifestyles improve their test scores?
Where did I say those should be illegal? (That would increase the size of the government)
I would encourage those "teachers" to start their own school. It would demonstrate how many parents would "pay" to have their children "exposed" to people that choose to live a less moral lifestyle.
Guessing by the amount of negative feedback, some of you feel that the schools are a great experiment to be conducted on other people's children, and not an institution that focuses on reading, writing, and arithmetic. How does "exposing" children to distractive lifestyles improve their test scores?
The examples you gave were ALL Illegal activities,
which logically leads to my statement.
It's not my responsibility to protect folks from what and how life IS.
UNLESS you want to outlaw those thangs, they're a part of Real Life,
NOT Illegal, and NOT to be discriminated against,
any more than ~ (I just saw this thread, but it's a good example) ~ PROCESSED FOODS.
We ALL have to learn how to deal with them,
and how to make our own decisions about them.
There are so many things wrong with his statements that I don't even know where to begin criticizing them.
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!!
It's South Carolina man. The majority of folks here probably agree with him.
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 means a relaxed set of values. Morals don't exactly matter all that much. I'm sure teaching that to our kids is a good idea. Uh huh.
Where did I say those should be illegal? (That would increase the size of the government)
I would encourage those "teachers" to start their own school. It would demonstrate how many parents would "pay" to have their children "exposed" to people that choose to live a less moral lifestyle.
Guessing by the amount of negative feedback, some of you feel that the schools are a great experiment to be conducted on other people's children, and not an institution that focuses on reading, writing, and arithmetic. How does "exposing" children to distractive lifestyles improve their test scores?
The examples you gave were ALL Illegal activities,
which logically leads to my statement.
It's not my responsibility to protect folks from what and how life IS.
UNLESS you want to outlaw those thangs, they're a part of Real Life,
NOT Illegal, and NOT to be discriminated against,
any more than ~ (I just saw this thread, but it's a good example) ~ PROCESSED FOODS.
We ALL have to learn how to deal with them,
and how to make our own decisions about 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 means a relaxed set of values. Morals don't exactly matter all that much. I'm sure teaching that to our kids is a good idea. Uh huh.
Hmm, So it comes down to the gay man in the skys morals? Uh, huh.............
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.
This has to be one of the stupidest posts I've read on here in awhile. Congrats on setting that bar so high, or would it be so low? Either way, congrats.
Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
MORALS should be taught At Home,
NOT in a school.
My God, even HE gave us freedom of choice!
Teach Your Children Well;
TALK to them;
BE their Role Models,
YOUR OWN SELF.
You can't pay folks to do it for you...
MORALS should be taught At Home,
NOT in a school.
My God, even HE gave us freedom of choice!
Teach Your Children Well;
TALK to them;
BE their Role Models,
YOUR OWN SELF.
You can't pay folks to do it for you...
If morals are taught at home, why should immorality be taught at school?
Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School
In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing "traditional marriage," according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and "said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend -- she shouldn't be in the classroom."
Controversy over DeMint's position on this issue first arose in 2004 during a Senate debate, when he was asked whether he agreed with the state party's platform that said openly gay teachers should be barred from teaching public school. DeMint said he agreed with that position because government shouldn't be endorsing certain behaviors.
"(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense," DeMint said on Friday in Spartanburg. "But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion."
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.
Based on your logic, we should have drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes teaching in public schools? Why do you say my post is stupid?
If you want "brain-washed" worker bees, then you give them role-models, not people that are "rebeling against the system". If you want the children to grow up not believing in the rule of law, and taking advantage of the system at every turn, then you give the students "alternative models".
If I am a parent, I do not want my tax dollars to support a person that does not respect my values by trying to push "their agenda" onto school students. It is like the guys that were using drugs and drinking that worked for Chrysler; it was unacceptable for them to do that while they were going to be working that afternoon. If you want to display your homosexual tendencies, or immoral living conditions, or your recreational drug use, don't teach school. If you want to represent a moral person that will be influencing young children, then teach school.
And based on YOUR logic,
being gay or pregnant out of wedlock should be ILLEGAL,
as are all of your examples.
That's a fail, friend.
Where did I say those should be illegal? (That would increase the size of the government)
I would encourage those "teachers" to start their own school. It would demonstrate how many parents would "pay" to have their children "exposed" to people that choose to live a less moral lifestyle.
Guessing by the amount of negative feedback, some of you feel that the schools are a great experiment to be conducted on other people's children, and not an institution that focuses on reading, writing, and arithmetic. How does "exposing" children to distractive lifestyles improve their test scores?
MORALS should be taught At Home,
NOT in a school.
My God, even HE gave us freedom of choice!
Teach Your Children Well;
TALK to them;
BE their Role Models,
YOUR OWN SELF.
You can't pay folks to do it for you...
MORALS should be taught At Home,
NOT in a school.
My God, even HE gave us freedom of choice!
Teach Your Children Well;
TALK to them;
BE their Role Models,
YOUR OWN SELF.
You can't pay folks to do it for you...
If morals are taught at home, why should immorality be taught at school?
MORALS should be taught At Home,
NOT in a school.
My God, even HE gave us freedom of choice!
Teach Your Children Well;
TALK to them;
BE their Role Models,
YOUR OWN SELF.
You can't pay folks to do it for you...
If morals are taught at home, why should immorality be taught at school?
Well...that is the goal. Teach them relaxed standards then when they need to elect a total piece of shit like say Obama then the kids won't mind it a bit. They're all fucked after all.
MORALS should be taught At Home,
NOT in a school.
My God, even HE gave us freedom of choice!
Teach Your Children Well;
TALK to them;
BE their Role Models,
YOUR OWN SELF.
You can't pay folks to do it for you...
If morals are taught at home, why should immorality be taught at school?
Well...that is the goal. Teach them relaxed standards then when they need to elect a total piece of shit like say Obama then the kids won't mind it a bit. They're all fucked after all.
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.
[/QUOTE]
If morals are taught at home, why should immorality be taught at school?
Well...that is the goal. Teach them relaxed standards then when they need to elect a total piece of shit like say Obama then the kids won't mind it a bit. They're all fucked after all.
Maybe we can teach them to read and write?
