How sad that our founders figured it out over 230 years ago and we still haven't yet

[P@triot]

While Jefferson supported the idea of public education, he would not have placed schools under government supervision. Instead, he argued for the placement of “each school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct.” He would put parents in charge.

"But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.… No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to."

Government = failure (it's an undeniable fact)

 

[MeadHallPirate]

While Jefferson supported the idea of public education, he would not have placed schools under government supervision. Instead, he argued for the placement of “each school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct.” He would put parents in charge.

"But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.… No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to."

Government = failure (it's an undeniable fact)

ahoy Rottweiller,

an o'erwhelmin' amount 'o parents in our christian and bountiful land approve 'o the current levels 'o Federal involvement in our public K-12 programs, though.

since Mr. Jefferson be dead, and has been fer a very long time now, i think votin' parents have a greater say in Government's (both Federal and State) policies in public education than Mr. Jefferson.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[there4eyeM]

The concept of local oversight of local affairs is great. However, as many in these threads often insist, this country is a republic, not a direct democracy, so minorities are protected. When it was seen that 'local' meant 'segregated', something had to be done. Any such action is unfortunate, but what is more unfortunate is that 'local' didn't work because 'locals' weren't good 'republicans'.

 

[fyrenza]

I'm in awe of our founders.
That they STUDIED, and conversed, and did their very best to think of every eventuality,
even to the point of LIMITING their power, knowing what corruption could, and would, bring.

But, HEY! It's just some ideals that this country was built upon,
and it's so dangerous out there, all by ourselves, that we need PARENTS,
even after we're all grown up,
to tell us what, and how, and when, and where,
and most particularly, WHY.
And to be "safe," well, dang, we'll accept a little, or a LOT of, corruption, 'cuz THAT's how we wanna roll!

We watch, as EVERY OTHER "system" of government falls,
and instead of GRABBING hold of what makes us/US impervious to those disasters,
we rush out and try to incorporate them into our WORKING system,
that DOES value each and every one of us/US,
as much as WE "value" ourselves.

I'm glad that I'm old, for all of this,
because I can be Front Lines, expendable firepower for the civil war,
or just long gone for the denouement of all of this idiocy.

 

[there4eyeM]

The concept of local oversight of local affairs is great. However, as many in these threads often insist, this country is a republic, not a direct democracy, so minorities are protected. When it was seen that 'local' meant 'segregated', something had to be done. Any such action is unfortunate, but what is more unfortunate is that 'local' didn't work because 'locals' weren't good 'republicans'.

This got 'negged'? This is partisan? Pointing out a simple fact is attacked? What sort of 'mind' would do that? What, exactly, is partisan about this? Stating that the principles of this country are great, but the practice is lacking? Can anyone deny that?

 

[fyrenza]

Mine. I negged you.

What you were saying was fine,

UNTIL you blamed it on Bush by alluding to it ALL resting upon the repugs.

THAT, my ... ugh! little "special" person

EQUALS partisanship.

 

[fyrenza]

Can YOU deny ^that?^

 

[fyrenza]

next!

 

[there4eyeM]

Mine. I negged you.

What you were saying was fine,

UNTIL you blamed it on Bush by alluding to it ALL resting upon the repugs.

THAT, my ... ugh! little "special" person

EQUALS partisanship.

Excuse me, but there was absolutely no reference to 'W' in that post. What gave you that idea? I mentioned 'republicans', small 'r', in reference to America being (small 'r') a republic, therefore republican in form. But there was nothing to do with any political party and certainly not with any specific administration. It was clearly general.

I don't understand the hyper-sensitivity to something that I don't even see.

 

[fyrenza]

American English isn't exactly your First language, is it?
And I refer to SCHOOL English,
where the teachers (presumably) teach a bit more than just the words.

"BY ALLUDING"

Got any earthly idea what ^that^ could possibly mean?

 

[there4eyeM]

It isn't my use and command of English that is wanting. Capital 'R' is used for the American political party. Small 'r' is used for the generic concept.

Your apology is awaited.

 

[fyrenza]

"(QUOTE MARK)

(a mind-boggling ITALICs)

Blame It On Bush

(end quote; end the emphasis of the italics)

means to Blame Repugs.

I felt sorry for you, and felt the need to explain;
pardonne moi.

 

[there4eyeM]

Any allusion was to the lack of genuine participation in the ideals of America by those who profess to be American. Party was not expressly involved. I hold both the parties of the two-party dictatorship in the same esteem; i.e., none.

 

[fyrenza]

It isn't my use and command of English that is wanting.

Yeah, it IS,

Your apology is awaited.

and so is yours.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I'm in awe of our founders.
That they STUDIED, and conversed, and did their very best to think of every eventuality,
even to the point of LIMITING their power, knowing what corruption could, and would, bring."

I very much agree.

 

[fyrenza]

NOT that I'd EVAH expect a libtard to apologize for being a dumbass,

but, HEY!

Hope springs, eternal!

 

[fyrenza]

I very much agree.

We agree on MUCH more than we could ever disagree on, sweetie.

You threw that "repug" thang in, at the end of your post,
and it DID make you sound partisan.

I shouldn't have trolled you like I did, and I DO apologize for that.

The thing IS,

if you're "right?"

If it's TRUTH that you're saying?

You don't need to "down" any-one/thing else, in order to make it look more attractive.

Truth is beautiful.

 

[there4eyeM]

NOT that I'd EVAH expect a libtard to apologize for being a dumbass,

but, HEY!

Hope springs, eternal!

I fail to see the relevance of this post in regards to mine. Assuming 'libtard' is supposed to be a reference to 'liberals', I am none and my posts do not promote that.

I note also the difference in respect for one another in our exchanges. You obviously do not know me nor have looked at my posts. Kindly keep your kindergarten name-calling for the playground, and keep your communications here in the open and not in 'negging' where no one sees it.

 

[P@triot]

While Jefferson supported the idea of public education, he would not have placed schools under government supervision. Instead, he argued for the placement of “each school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct.” He would put parents in charge.

"But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by…[any] general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.… No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to."

Government = failure (it's an undeniable fact)

ahoy Rottweiller,

an o'erwhelmin' amount 'o parents in our christian and bountiful land approve 'o the current levels 'o Federal involvement in our public K-12 programs, though.

since Mr. Jefferson be dead, and has been fer a very long time now, i think votin' parents have a greater say in Government's (both Federal and State) policies in public education than Mr. Jefferson.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

And you know this how?

 

[there4eyeM]

I very much agree.

We agree on MUCH more than we could ever disagree on, sweetie.

You threw that "repug" thang in, at the end of your post,
and it DID make you sound partisan.

I shouldn't have trolled you like I did, and I DO apologize for that.

The thing IS,

if you're "right?"

If it's TRUTH that you're saying?

You don't need to "down" any-one/thing else, in order to make it look more attractive.

Truth is beautiful.

Peace...