Is homeschooling a good solution?

[regent]

It has been demonstrated that capitalism yields better results than socialism. The fact that soviet citizens were clamboring for Levis and shoes, the long bread lines, should be proof enough.

Socialized solutions are sub-optimum compared to capitalist solutions.

If we want crappy schools, they should be socialized. If we want high quality schools, they should be privatized.

So what economic system did the Soviet Union practice socialism or communism, or are they the same?

 

[Centinel]

It has been demonstrated that capitalism yields better results than socialism. The fact that soviet citizens were clamboring for Levis and shoes, the long bread lines, should be proof enough.

Socialized solutions are sub-optimum compared to capitalist solutions.

If we want crappy schools, they should be socialized. If we want high quality schools, they should be privatized.

So what economic system did the Soviet Union practice socialism or communism, or are they the same?

A non-capitalist one. That's why they had bread lines and couldn't supply their citizens with decent blue jeans or rock and roll.

I want a capitalist schooling system, not a Soviet one.

 

[P@triot]

It has been demonstrated that capitalism yields better results than socialism. The fact that soviet citizens were clamboring for Levis and shoes, the long bread lines, should be proof enough.

Socialized solutions are sub-optimum compared to capitalist solutions.

If we want crappy schools, they should be socialized. If we want high quality schools, they should be privatized.

So what economic system did the Soviet Union practice socialism or communism, or are they the same?

They are the same economically. The differ politically.

Socialism is economic suicide via the vote.
Communism is economic suicide via the gun.

One is decision by the people.
The other is a decision by a dictator.

But they both end the same - with mass murder, extreme poverty, and misery.

 

[Unkotare]

Nobody understand an issue, can see the glaring flaw in the opposition, and point out the complete lack of logic in that glaring flaw like Bripat can. No wonder he causes liberals to flip the freak out on USMB.

The reason people flip out is their problem None of you even understand the problem, much less can offer a solution because all of your ignorance drives the discussion.

I can offer a solution. Been doing it for years. It's so simple, only liberals can't understand it: return to Constitutional government. Literally 100% of our problems are solved after that.

We need more than your stupid bumper sticker slogan.

Calm down, champ. Easy does it. You're a little overwrought.

Right? And the irony? He claims to be educating America's youth. Which, if true, simply proves what all of us have been saying all along!

Everyone could try a little better here if a real discussion were the goal (though I'm not opposed to pointless bickering if that is the aim).

 

[Contumacious]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

 

[Centinel]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

Precisely. SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The constitution is the law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.

 

[Unkotare]

Well, it's pretty clear why this is unlikely to be a real discussion...

 

[initforme]

Homeschooling is good for those that do it. I have zero problem with it. Private school is great if that's what parents choose. Public school works just fine for those who do that too. I am for freedom in the choice. Where I live the public schools offered far and away the best choice and my kids benefitted great. People that believe I made a bad decision are not my fellow Americans.

 

[Centinel]

Homeschooling is good for those that do it. I have zero problem with it. Private school is great if that's what parents choose. Public school works just fine for those who do that too. I am for freedom in the choice. Where I live the public schools offered far and away the best choice and my kids benefitted great. People that believe I made a bad decision are not my fellow Americans.

I'd prefer non-socialist schools to what we currently have. When the state controls the means of production, quality suffers. The state is not as responsive to consumer demand as private firms are.

 

[Dale Smith]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

Precisely. SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The constitution is the law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.

If you claim to be a U.S citizen instead of an American, you are not under "the law of the land" which was the organic Constitution that was written in 1787 as it was kicked to the curb with the Act of 1871 because America was bankrupt thus the international bankers were able to get a foothold again in this country after President Andrew Jackson kicked them out in 1836. The 14th amendment didn't free the slaves insomuch as it made everyone a potential indentured debt slave but that was to come to fruition later on down the road. We are actually under "admiralty law", law of the sea and by virtue of some fancy legalese, we became warehouse receipts on this huge ship that is USA.INC via our birth certificate which is just another notation on this ship's manifest that has to be produced when the ship docks. We do not have judges because under the UCC (Universal Commercial Code) corporations do not pass laws...they pass acts, statutes and codes. Want an example? The Patriot Act, The Healthcare Act...many other examples.

They create a strawman the day the day that your "informant" i.e your mother signs the birth certificate that wasn't required until the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1993 that required everyone to turn in their gold bullion (actual money) for a fiat debt note. Don't believe me? Take a look at your birth certificate or CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (the all caps is significant which I will allude to later) where the mother signs and you will see the title of the box stating in small print "MOTHER OR OTHER INFORMANT". By signing the "birth certificate" as an informer, she contracts with the government putting her child and her child's future labor up as collateral for the national debt because that was all FDR had to bargain with.

The birth certificate is written on bond paper and the Treasury (which is actually the IMF now) makes themselves the trustee of that bond and we become surety on the debt. Using actuarial tables, they come up with a benchmark for what the bond will be worth over your life time due to the commerce, taxes and other fees you will pay over your lifetime and more likely than not, it will increase in value. They also insure it should you die before it matures enough to be worth the effort of monetizing it. They then collect the balance of that bond when they receive the death certificate. Life insurance companies have an awesome scam going. When your beneficiary of the policy goes to collect, they must turn in the original copy of that death certificate in order to pay out. They then turn that over to the bond holders while charging a hefty fee because without the original copy of that death certificate, they cannot collect the balance. Under the UCC just about anything can be monetized and made a negotiable instrument. Promissory notes is another big scam...your signature on it is the same thing as the Fed printing money...the bank wasn't out a dime but they will collect your payments through your labor PLUS interest. if people ONLY new how badly that they have been fucked over......I find it hard to take in myself sometimes.

 

[Unkotare]

Oh great, the conspiracy loon has dropped by for more spamming...

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure there is much "exaggeration" going on ART. Many public schools are teaching the egregious lie known as "Global Warming" (which, after being unequivocally proven to be a lie, was changed to "Climate Change"). They also refuse to properly teach the U.S. Constitution. And then of course there is the Common Core nonsense (which, in all fairness, most teachers I know hate).

Teachers don't set the curriculum so I'm not blaming them or you. But there is a huge indoctrination program being utilized by many states (sadly).

Properly teach the Constitution? What evidence do you have of that? Almost half my career has been teaching American Government classes at the high school level.

One of the biggest problems I have with conservatives who criticize education is the belief that because someone apparently doesn't know the Constitution or ignores what they were taught, that somehow equates to that the never were taught. Obama is an alleged Constitutional Law instructor and Harvard Law alumni, but he makes policy in direct conflict with the Constitution that any middle-schooler should know is illegal. That is why the courts smack his down on a regular basis!

As far as Common Core goes, the ignorance on that topic abounds. Common Core is not the problem, but the curriculum bought by school districts aligned with the Common Core standards, which they call Common Core, when it is not. On this forum and others, I have heard conservatives railing about the Common Core Social Studies Standards. It is really so sad that no such thing exists and anyone not knowing that should be immediately dismissed as a loon.

We don't criticize education itself, we criticize the educational system.

Actually there are many conservatives that are critical of education, and I just responded to one particular example on this thread.

Now that's ridiculous. Who is against education?

You, apparently. You criticize what you don't know anything about.

What did I criticize that I don't know anything about?

 

[kaz]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

So you've said you've been teaching in a conservative, rural area. I've lived in eight States literally from coast to cost (Connecticut to California) and my kids have gone to a plethora of schools public and private. What is your knowledge of schools across the country based on?

 

[kaz]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

The Supreme Court is just a political nomination for sure. They don't give a shit what the document says. Ruling after ruling shows that. Justices need to have term limits. It's just a politburo where the Constitution says whatever 5/9 want it to say

 

[kaz]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

Precisely. SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The constitution is the law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.

Yes, and nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell us what the Constitution "says." They gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison.

I think the State Legislatures should decide what is Constitutional. If you think about it, that really would be the test that's consistent with how our government was set up. The Supreme Court deciding is the Federal government deciding what powers the Federal government has, which is why it doesn't work.

The individual legislatures may be as corrupt as the Federal one, but they have different interests. So at least it's an actual check and balance. Power divided is power checked. The Supreme Court's not power divided, it's power condensed

 

[Contumacious]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

The Supreme Court is just a political nomination for sure. They don't give a shit what the document says. Ruling after ruling shows that. Justices need to have term limits. It's just a politburo where the Constitution says whatever 5/9 want it to say

After 1935 SCOTUS became a rubber stamp .

The justices are there in order to

1- get a steady paycheck
2- enjoy the prestige
3- enjoy federal blue cross blue shield
4- help pepetrate the fraud that we still enjoy Article III review

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

So you've said you've been teaching in a conservative, rural area. I've lived in eight States literally from coast to cost (Connecticut to California) and my kids have gone to a plethora of schools public and private. What is your knowledge of schools across the country based on?

My kids attended schools in Alabama, Rhode Island, Virginia, Florida and Kentucky. I also have a Master's degree in education where we studied schools nationwide. I taught in two of those states and for the Department of Defense. Remind me again where you taught and where you received your education degree?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As to your assertion about how the Constitution is taught, I would merely ask where you got that information. I have taught social studies in two different states and in 7 different school districts. I think that assertion is more urban legend than anything else.

As I said in another post as well, again, generally I agree things are stated correctly. But then they find things that aren't there, a right to privacy, a right to an abortion, the right for men to go to women's bathrooms and other things that aren't there. They think all businesses are covered by the right to regulate interstate commerce. You have to be smart enough to separate the definitions which are generally right from the discussions which frequently are not

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

Precisely. SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The constitution is the law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.

Yes, and nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell us what the Constitution "says." They gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison.

I think the State Legislatures should decide what is Constitutional. If you think about it, that really would be the test that's consistent with how our government was set up. The Supreme Court deciding is the Federal government deciding what powers the Federal government has, which is why it doesn't work.

The individual legislatures may be as corrupt as the Federal one, but they have different interests. So at least it's an actual check and balance. Power divided is power checked. The Supreme Court's not power divided, it's power condensed

The state legislatures do have a say in what is Constitutional. They can amend the Constitution any time they feel the need to do so.

 

[Norman]

I don't believe liberal parents should be forced to make their children attend conservative public schools in red states and vice versa.

Anything is better than a public school, red or blue...

 

[Unkotare]

I don't believe liberal parents should be forced to make their children attend conservative public schools in red states and vice versa.

Anything is better than a public school, red or blue...

???