Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Divine Wind]

Then why can they hardly teach the 3-Rs? Is it because of funding or the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Is it the older school buildings? Is it that teachers can't learn how to teach a different subject that home-school parents learn how to do all the time?

I have no idea where this concept of money equaling results came from. It's simply not true. It's more of an excuse for failure if anything.

It's more about economics than "funding". What do you mean by "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? Are you saying those poor kids in the Appalachians are genetically predisposed to being stupid? Meth heads?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When you do call for that change, expect to hear a lot of echo's because you'll be one of the few in that room.

Yes, I've noticed.

It's funny, this is how it kind of goes.

"We have problems, oh we have lots of problems"

"Here's the solution to your problem"

"Oh, no, no, no, I can't accept that"

Basically too many people won't accept solutions to their problems. It's bizarre. You can have all the debates on here you like about the problems, and the only two conclusions are A) there are solutions that could solve these problems and B) the people don't want to solve these problems, they're just bitchin' because it makes them feel good about themselves.

I wonder whether this is a natural thing. Every empire has fallen, and every empire will fall. And it appears that empires grow to a certain strength and the people then suddenly change, they're born believing that somehow they're destined to greatness, and this is what makes them fall from greatness.

China's up next, and the Chinese are selfish, and you'd better be prepared to be fucked so hard up the ass by the Chinese it'll make you cry.

No, people like solutions, it's just that everybody has a different solution and believe that only theirs can work.

That's what makes the world turn. That's why we have elections. Politicians present their solutions to problems, and you either vote for those solutions or you vote for another persons solutions.

We have an immigration problem. They are draining our social programs, committing crimes, taking our jobs, and lowering our pay rate for American workers.

The Democrat solution is amnesty and open borders. Trump's solution is strict enforcement on illegals and building a wall. The people chose Trump's solution over Hillary's, because Hillary's can't work. It would only net the Democrat party more votes in the future.

Sure they do. The problem is many people on forums like this, their solution is so simple it's not a solution.

Take "lock 'em up" as a solution to dealing with crime. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.
Take "make drugs illegal" as a solution to dealing with drugs. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.

There are solutions and there are solutions that work because they get to the heart of the problem.

Yes, and there are solutions to the immigration problem and then there are solutions that work, and it's a mentality issue. You have intelligent people not thinking much about how things should be. They just want to let people in all the time as if this works, and they cry racist if you try and stop people getting in.

The people didn't choose Trump's solutions over Hillary's. I doubt most people voted for issues at all. They voted for personality, they voted for hope too. The same with Obama, the same with Bush, the same with Clinton. Bush snr might have been the last president to get elected because people thought he was actually the right guy for the job, and he didn't last very long... that's the mentality of the voters. The voters are the biggest problem the US faces.

You can't say that Trump was voted in just because of his personality. Most people don't like his personality. People voted for Trump because he was the only candidate that took a tough stance on our immigration problem.

The Republicans have gained so much power the last six years in state offices, county offices, federal seats, and it's not because Republicans have such good personalities. It's because Democrats have made it known they are trying tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. And now more activist judges are aiding them. This is liberalism and Americans are rejecting it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No, I disagree. Trump used the "I'm one of you" the same as Dubya used. He managed to create a semi-cult by using the same nationalistic, populist imagery in people's minds. The same has been done in plenty of other countries, all he needed to do was to look see how it was done and then carry it out. But there are many on the right who seem to like politicians who are at their level. But there are plenty of other things he did too, like hope. It wasn't just personality that attracted people. But then again the voting was also quite negative.

Immigration is just one issue, and it's how you present the issue too. Had Trump come out with sensible plans for dealing with immigration, no one would have given a damn. It was that he went on about a wall, he found something like a relic in religion, something people would should about, something simple, something visual, something simple people think would work.

There isn't a simple answer to why Trump managed to get into office, but at the heart of it he presented people with populism and a personality of someone who is "tough" and people go crazy for "tough" people, even though they end up causing more harm than solutions to problems.

Trump won for two reasons: he sided with white people concerned about jobs, wealth, drugs, and being demoted to a new minority, and Hillary was a terrible contestant.

Nobody likes Trump's personality. In fact, it's one of the things that worked against him. Nobody believed Trump was one of the guys at the bar. But he spoke like one of the guys at the bar, and we related to that.

Yes, immigration was one issue, but so was Hope and Change. One issue is enough to get you elected if most people find that one issue paramount to all other issues.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Ttump won because democrats were running around the country screaming "we hate you. You are deplorable. You don't have an ocean view. We really hate you."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then why can they hardly teach the 3-Rs? Is it because of funding or the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Is it the older school buildings? Is it that teachers can't learn how to teach a different subject that home-school parents learn how to do all the time?

I have no idea where this concept of money equaling results came from. It's simply not true. It's more of an excuse for failure if anything.

It's more about economics than "funding". What do you mean by "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? Are you saying those poor kids in the Appalachians are genetically predisposed to being stupid? Meth heads?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

When middle-class couples have kids, those kids will generally end up middle-class.

When upper middle-class couples have kids, they will generally end up upper-middle class people.

When wealthy people have kids, those kids will generally end up wealthy adults.

The same holds true for poor people. There are anomalies in every class of course. But you're not going to be able to teach a floor sweeper to be a wall street banker.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I've noticed.

It's funny, this is how it kind of goes.

"We have problems, oh we have lots of problems"

"Here's the solution to your problem"

"Oh, no, no, no, I can't accept that"

Basically too many people won't accept solutions to their problems. It's bizarre. You can have all the debates on here you like about the problems, and the only two conclusions are A) there are solutions that could solve these problems and B) the people don't want to solve these problems, they're just bitchin' because it makes them feel good about themselves.

I wonder whether this is a natural thing. Every empire has fallen, and every empire will fall. And it appears that empires grow to a certain strength and the people then suddenly change, they're born believing that somehow they're destined to greatness, and this is what makes them fall from greatness.

China's up next, and the Chinese are selfish, and you'd better be prepared to be fucked so hard up the ass by the Chinese it'll make you cry.

No, people like solutions, it's just that everybody has a different solution and believe that only theirs can work.

That's what makes the world turn. That's why we have elections. Politicians present their solutions to problems, and you either vote for those solutions or you vote for another persons solutions.

We have an immigration problem. They are draining our social programs, committing crimes, taking our jobs, and lowering our pay rate for American workers.

The Democrat solution is amnesty and open borders. Trump's solution is strict enforcement on illegals and building a wall. The people chose Trump's solution over Hillary's, because Hillary's can't work. It would only net the Democrat party more votes in the future.

Sure they do. The problem is many people on forums like this, their solution is so simple it's not a solution.

Take "lock 'em up" as a solution to dealing with crime. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.
Take "make drugs illegal" as a solution to dealing with drugs. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.

There are solutions and there are solutions that work because they get to the heart of the problem.

Yes, and there are solutions to the immigration problem and then there are solutions that work, and it's a mentality issue. You have intelligent people not thinking much about how things should be. They just want to let people in all the time as if this works, and they cry racist if you try and stop people getting in.

The people didn't choose Trump's solutions over Hillary's. I doubt most people voted for issues at all. They voted for personality, they voted for hope too. The same with Obama, the same with Bush, the same with Clinton. Bush snr might have been the last president to get elected because people thought he was actually the right guy for the job, and he didn't last very long... that's the mentality of the voters. The voters are the biggest problem the US faces.

You can't say that Trump was voted in just because of his personality. Most people don't like his personality. People voted for Trump because he was the only candidate that took a tough stance on our immigration problem.

The Republicans have gained so much power the last six years in state offices, county offices, federal seats, and it's not because Republicans have such good personalities. It's because Democrats have made it known they are trying tirelessly to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. And now more activist judges are aiding them. This is liberalism and Americans are rejecting it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No, I disagree. Trump used the "I'm one of you" the same as Dubya used. He managed to create a semi-cult by using the same nationalistic, populist imagery in people's minds. The same has been done in plenty of other countries, all he needed to do was to look see how it was done and then carry it out. But there are many on the right who seem to like politicians who are at their level. But there are plenty of other things he did too, like hope. It wasn't just personality that attracted people. But then again the voting was also quite negative.

Immigration is just one issue, and it's how you present the issue too. Had Trump come out with sensible plans for dealing with immigration, no one would have given a damn. It was that he went on about a wall, he found something like a relic in religion, something people would should about, something simple, something visual, something simple people think would work.

There isn't a simple answer to why Trump managed to get into office, but at the heart of it he presented people with populism and a personality of someone who is "tough" and people go crazy for "tough" people, even though they end up causing more harm than solutions to problems.

Trump won for two reasons: he sided with white people concerned about jobs, wealth, drugs, and being demoted to a new minority, and Hillary was a terrible contestant.

Nobody likes Trump's personality. In fact, it's one of the things that worked against him. Nobody believed Trump was one of the guys at the bar. But he spoke like one of the guys at the bar, and we related to that.

Yes, immigration was one issue, but so was Hope and Change. One issue is enough to get you elected if most people find that one issue paramount to all other issues.

Again, I disagree. You're making it too simple.

Hope is one of the biggest parts of getting support among the whole country, Obama did it, Trump did it. Hope for something better. It doesn't even need to be realistic. Yes, Trump used hope that the US would be "great" again. Completely meaningless, but something that people can understand. They want their country to be whatever they think great is. Trump doesn't need to tell them what it is, they'll imagine he's going to make it in their vision.

That's how you win the presidency in a country that is too large for anything meaningful. Colin Powell was asked if he'd run for the presidency and he said no, because he'd annoy 99% of the people by doing what was right in every instance. You can't do that. Now, the things you've said aren't wrong, they come under this. Trump made vague and often contradictory statements about jobs, wealth, drugs etc. He offered them the hope they're craving, and yet offered no real, tangible ways of getting this, except for a damn wall, which wouldn't do what people wanted it to do anyway.

Yes, Trump spoke like a guy at the bar, like he's one of us. But he's a multi-billionaire who has screwed over enough working people in this life time to keep him going for millions of years. But people don't realize when they're being duped massively. This is part of the problem.

 

[Divine Wind]

Then why can they hardly teach the 3-Rs? Is it because of funding or the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Is it the older school buildings? Is it that teachers can't learn how to teach a different subject that home-school parents learn how to do all the time?

I have no idea where this concept of money equaling results came from. It's simply not true. It's more of an excuse for failure if anything.

It's more about economics than "funding". What do you mean by "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? Are you saying those poor kids in the Appalachians are genetically predisposed to being stupid? Meth heads?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

When middle-class couples have kids, those kids will generally end up middle-class.

When upper middle-class couples have kids, they will generally end up upper-middle class people.

When wealthy people have kids, those kids will generally end up wealthy adults.

The same holds true for poor people. There are anomalies in every class of course. But you're not going to be able to teach a floor sweeper to be a wall street banker.

Disagreed. It's more about opportunity than genes. You are talking like the British with their class system.

Unfortunately, the United States is no longer the land of opportunity, situations do seem to lock people into social classes. One of the few areas where people can break out is the military. That too is shrinking as our military has shrunk in favor of technology and, due to less demand for personnel, more restricted regarding education and background.

The bottomline here is that our nation is better off when the potential of all citizens is maximized, thus producing the maximum level of production and tax revenue. Just cutting people loose produces a tax burden.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then why can they hardly teach the 3-Rs? Is it because of funding or the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Is it the older school buildings? Is it that teachers can't learn how to teach a different subject that home-school parents learn how to do all the time?

I have no idea where this concept of money equaling results came from. It's simply not true. It's more of an excuse for failure if anything.

It's more about economics than "funding". What do you mean by "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? Are you saying those poor kids in the Appalachians are genetically predisposed to being stupid? Meth heads?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

When middle-class couples have kids, those kids will generally end up middle-class.

When upper middle-class couples have kids, they will generally end up upper-middle class people.

When wealthy people have kids, those kids will generally end up wealthy adults.

The same holds true for poor people. There are anomalies in every class of course. But you're not going to be able to teach a floor sweeper to be a wall street banker.

But the point that should be made here is that for a society to be successful, you need those who can succeed to be given the tools to do so. So, it's about equality, that the poor are given an education which enables them to have the necessary skills as much as anyone else, if they're able to grasp those skills. Rather than a caste system which says "you're poor, stay where you are".

 

[12icer]

Bullshit is really flying a long way in this thread. The kid could not legally own a gun because of the 1968 gun control act. He is a criminal and was treated as one. Next schools do not do education anymore they do indoctrination, and targeted social behavior modification. The objective is to make them believe the historically incorrect version of history and sociology that will best support socialisim as a viable model of economic and social structure when it is not and never has been feasible or successful. You can talk the same disproven shit day in and day out, but that does not mean there is even a single grain of truth in it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Did the kid actually need a gun for protection?
If so the problem is not the kid or the gun or the law. The problem is the idea that it's OK to raise kids in such a place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then why can they hardly teach the 3-Rs? Is it because of funding or the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Is it the older school buildings? Is it that teachers can't learn how to teach a different subject that home-school parents learn how to do all the time?

I have no idea where this concept of money equaling results came from. It's simply not true. It's more of an excuse for failure if anything.

It's more about economics than "funding". What do you mean by "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? Are you saying those poor kids in the Appalachians are genetically predisposed to being stupid? Meth heads?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

When middle-class couples have kids, those kids will generally end up middle-class.

When upper middle-class couples have kids, they will generally end up upper-middle class people.

When wealthy people have kids, those kids will generally end up wealthy adults.

The same holds true for poor people. There are anomalies in every class of course. But you're not going to be able to teach a floor sweeper to be a wall street banker.

But the point that should be made here is that for a society to be successful, you need those who can succeed to be given the tools to do so. So, it's about equality, that the poor are given an education which enables them to have the necessary skills as much as anyone else, if they're able to grasp those skills. Rather than a caste system which says "you're poor, stay where you are".

So who says "stay there?" Besides the performance of the students, what evidence is there that kids receive a subprime education in lower income areas? Is it the schools or the students and family?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then why can they hardly teach the 3-Rs? Is it because of funding or the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Is it the older school buildings? Is it that teachers can't learn how to teach a different subject that home-school parents learn how to do all the time?

I have no idea where this concept of money equaling results came from. It's simply not true. It's more of an excuse for failure if anything.

It's more about economics than "funding". What do you mean by "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? Are you saying those poor kids in the Appalachians are genetically predisposed to being stupid? Meth heads?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

When middle-class couples have kids, those kids will generally end up middle-class.

When upper middle-class couples have kids, they will generally end up upper-middle class people.

When wealthy people have kids, those kids will generally end up wealthy adults.

The same holds true for poor people. There are anomalies in every class of course. But you're not going to be able to teach a floor sweeper to be a wall street banker.

But the point that should be made here is that for a society to be successful, you need those who can succeed to be given the tools to do so. So, it's about equality, that the poor are given an education which enables them to have the necessary skills as much as anyone else, if they're able to grasp those skills. Rather than a caste system which says "you're poor, stay where you are".

So who says "stay there?" Besides the performance of the students, what evidence is there that kids receive a subprime education in lower income areas? Is it the schools or the students and family?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Who? Well, the people who keep things the same, the people who promote the cycle of poverty, the lack of opportunities, the people who don't want positive change.

As for evidence... well..

Education in the Inner City

" For most kids a solid education is perhaps their only chance to get off the streets, out of the city so that they can create a better situation for their own kids. "

http://dropoutprevention.org/effective-strategies/after-school-opportunities/

" A study by Posner and Vandell (1999) found that children who participated in quality after-school programs were better emotionally adjusted and had better peer relationships. "

"Participating students demonstrated increased achievement, regular attendance, good behavior, and a reduction in grade retention. Those at-risk students in the lowest quartile on standardized test scores and English Language Learners showed the greatest improvement. Students also showed improved social skills and behavior which resulted in fewer disciplinary incidents at school and fewer suspensions. There was a 53.4% decrease in retention in the primary grades associated with the program. "

Trump budget casualty: After-school programs for 1.6 million kids. Most are poor.

"Trump budget casualty: After-school programs for 1.6 million kids. Most are poor."

Do you really think Trump, who said he was going to stop inner cities being a problem, is going to do this by taking away the very things that work?

 

[Divine Wind]

So who says "stay there?" Besides the performance of the students, what evidence is there that kids receive a subprime education in lower income areas? Is it the schools or the students and family?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Stay there? Is that like "Let them eat cake"? Sure, why don't they just move to a nice suburban 3-bdrm, 2-car garage home with a white picket fence and near nice schools? /sarcasm

There is a direct correlation between funding and educational success. As shown in the links below, but the links also so that just throwing money at a problem isn't magical. There is a minimum level of funding necessary for academic success. Poorer areas don't reach that level and richer areas are spending more than necessary. There also other problems with poorer areas such as jobs. What good is a solid HS education if it only means graduates will be reading Shakespeare in the unemployment line? We need to work smarter, not harder (meaning only throwing money at problems) when it comes to maximizing the potential of American citizens.


School Spending Increases Linked to Better Outcomes for Poor Students
In districts that substantially increased their spending as the result of court-ordered changes in school finance, low-income children were significantly more likely to graduate from high school, earn livable wages, and avoid poverty in adulthood.

More Money Really Does Make Schools Better
The authors then take a look at the mechanisms by which increased spending improves performance. The spending doesn’t lure richer kids to poor districts, they find. But it does seem that certain types of spending, especially on non-instructional items like capital improvements and support services, make a significant contribution. In other words, providing better physical and social environments for poor kids helps boost their performance relative to their richer peers.

This evidence should come as a wake-up call for everyone involved in education policy discussions. The conventional wisdom that more spending doesn’t work appears to be wrong, at least in part -- more money for education does seem to help poor kids. That doesn’t mean that school reforms, including charter schools, are bad. It just means that more money for poor schools can be a real help.

 

[Divine Wind]

Who? Well, the people who keep things the same, the people who promote the cycle of poverty, the lack of opportunities, the people who don't want positive change....

Who are the people who "promote the cycle of poverty" nor want "positive change"? Why would someone prefer to pay $30,000/year in taxpayer dollars for 30 years to lock someone up rather than spend a third of that to educate them and allow a citizen to become a taxpayer instead of a tax liability?

...Do you really think Trump, who said he was going to stop inner cities being a problem, is going to do this by taking away the very things that work?

Yes, thanks for the typical Trump bashing but two facts remain: 1) The Feds are spending too much money overall and need to cut the deficit and 2) Federal school funding is less than 10%. States can make up the difference.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No I don't wonder I know why there are problems I know why there are problems and every problem starts with the individual and the choices made by that individual

Like the decision of individuals to be slaves?

we have slaves?

No. My point was that you said problems start with the individual. So I was wondering A) if slaves brought on their problems themselves, like the problem of being in slavery and B) the problems that have come from slavery, like racism, segregation, discrimination were brought on black people themselves, or was it the people who are acting in such a manner and have/had the power to do so who were bringing the problems on other people.

The point being that often it isn't the individual who is bringing the problems on themselves, but OTHERS who have the power to impose problems on others.

and yet you want to impose your will on others so they act the way you think they should

And you don't? You don't believe in laws to stop people acting in ways you think they shouldn't?

All kids grow up being told how to think, how to act, what is right, what is wrong. It happens with every single person. You can pretend it doesn't happen, but it does.

No I do not force my will on anyone and I realize unlike you that laws do not stop people from doing anything if they did we would have no crime at all

yes kids do grow up being told what to do but what you don't understand is that if they're not your kids you do not have the right to tell them what to think or do

and the second they reach the age of majority they get to think for themselves and you do not have the right to tell them what to think or coerce them into behavior you think is desirable

 

[Skull Pilot]

When you do call for that change, expect to hear a lot of echo's because you'll be one of the few in that room.

Yes, I've noticed.

It's funny, this is how it kind of goes.

"We have problems, oh we have lots of problems"

"Here's the solution to your problem"

"Oh, no, no, no, I can't accept that"

Basically too many people won't accept solutions to their problems. It's bizarre. You can have all the debates on here you like about the problems, and the only two conclusions are A) there are solutions that could solve these problems and B) the people don't want to solve these problems, they're just bitchin' because it makes them feel good about themselves.

I wonder whether this is a natural thing. Every empire has fallen, and every empire will fall. And it appears that empires grow to a certain strength and the people then suddenly change, they're born believing that somehow they're destined to greatness, and this is what makes them fall from greatness.

China's up next, and the Chinese are selfish, and you'd better be prepared to be fucked so hard up the ass by the Chinese it'll make you cry.

No, people like solutions, it's just that everybody has a different solution and believe that only theirs can work.

That's what makes the world turn. That's why we have elections. Politicians present their solutions to problems, and you either vote for those solutions or you vote for another persons solutions.

We have an immigration problem. They are draining our social programs, committing crimes, taking our jobs, and lowering our pay rate for American workers.

The Democrat solution is amnesty and open borders. Trump's solution is strict enforcement on illegals and building a wall. The people chose Trump's solution over Hillary's, because Hillary's can't work. It would only net the Democrat party more votes in the future.

Sure they do. The problem is many people on forums like this, their solution is so simple it's not a solution.

Take "lock 'em up" as a solution to dealing with crime. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.
Take "make drugs illegal" as a solution to dealing with drugs. It's simple, and it doesn't seem to work.

There are solutions and there are solutions that work because they get to the heart of the problem.

Yes, and there are solutions to the immigration problem and then there are solutions that work, and it's a mentality issue. You have intelligent people not thinking much about how things should be. They just want to let people in all the time as if this works, and they cry racist if you try and stop people getting in.

The people didn't choose Trump's solutions over Hillary's. I doubt most people voted for issues at all. They voted for personality, they voted for hope too. The same with Obama, the same with Bush, the same with Clinton. Bush snr might have been the last president to get elected because people thought he was actually the right guy for the job, and he didn't last very long... that's the mentality of the voters. The voters are the biggest problem the US faces.

actually locking people up does work you just have to keep them locked up

So... Louisiana, lock 'em up capital of the god damn world, has low crime rates? Low murder rates?

No, it doesn't.

So... then.... what?

You're going to lock up half the country, bankrupt the country. Some guy was caught J-walking, you're going to give him life because it's the only way to stop him doing it in the future?

Oh, yeah, you don't want to tell people how to act.

do they KEEP them locked up or is it a revolving door like most prisons?

and no I only want to lock up VIOLENT criminals and keep them locked up

 

[Divine Wind]

No I do not force my will on anyone and I realize unlike you that laws do not stop people from doing anything if they did we would have no crime at all

yes kids do grow up being told what to do but what you don't understand is that if they're not your kids you do not have the right to tell them what to think or do

and the second they reach the age of majority they get to think for themselves and you do not have the right to tell them what to think or coerce them into behavior you think is desirable

Since over 90% of school funding is local and state, we do have a right to say what is taught in schools.

I have no kids, yet I pay $2500/year in taxes that are primarily used for K-12 public education. I'm fine with this since I'd rather have other people's little bastards darlings properly educated and grow up to be responsible taxpayers rather than boosting my hubcaps and going to jail as a tax liability.

 

[Divine Wind]

do they KEEP them locked up or is it a revolving door like most prisons?

and no I only want to lock up VIOLENT criminals and keep them locked up

Revolving door initially then, due to mandatory sentencing and "3 strike" laws, 20 to life.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No I do not force my will on anyone and I realize unlike you that laws do not stop people from doing anything if they did we would have no crime at all

yes kids do grow up being told what to do but what you don't understand is that if they're not your kids you do not have the right to tell them what to think or do

and the second they reach the age of majority they get to think for themselves and you do not have the right to tell them what to think or coerce them into behavior you think is desirable

Since over 90% of school funding is local and state, we do have a right to say what is taught in schools.

I have no kids, yet I pay $2500/year in taxes that are primarily used for K-12 public education. I'm fine with this since I'd rather have other people's little bastards darlings properly educated and grow up to be responsible taxpayers rather than boosting my hubcaps and going to jail as a tax liability.

I disagree and parents who disagree with you home school their kids as I would if I had kids

but this control fetish goes beyond just children and you know it.
The idea of using taxes to punish behaviors deemed "bad for you" by the powers that be is a favorite ham handed social engineering tool of the control freaks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

do they KEEP them locked up or is it a revolving door like most prisons?

and no I only want to lock up VIOLENT criminals and keep them locked up

Revolving door initially then, due to mandatory sentencing and "3 strike" laws, 20 to life.

3 felonies but then again how many crimes that are felonies are negotiated down to lesser charges?

 

[Divine Wind]

...but this control fetish goes beyond just children and you know it.
The idea of using taxes to punish behaviors deemed "bad for you" by the powers that be is a favorite ham handed social engineering tool of the control freaks.

I was addressing K-12 public school taxes. What you are talking about is completely different. Please cite some examples of "using taxes to punish behaviors deemed "bad for you"" and, perhaps, we can find something to agree upon.