T1B

BSmack wrote:'Holic,

Why do you hate The Establishment Clause?

Because fucking Liberals like to wipe their ass with the Constitution when it suits their agenda.

smackaholic wrote: I will never understand the liberal hatred of all things religious.

Because they're fairy tales, you god forsaken moron.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:'Holic,

Why do you hate The Establishment Clause?

Because fucking Liberals like to wipe their ass with the Constitution when it suits their agenda.

Because you always vote for people who pledge to appoint or confirm justices who will overturn Wickard.

You're preaching to the choir on Wickard. The day SCOTUS decided that the USA was no longer a free country, and gave Congress unlimited power.

BSmack wrote:Phibes, I'll be interested to see how far this Buffalo Renaissance goes when the younger professional class starts to breed.

To be honest, wasn't thinking of anything that immediate - moreover an arc of 20 - 30 years. The state of the city since - say, 1990 is remarkable. Hamilton is undergoing something similar, albeit with an engine like Toronto driving it. Buffalo hasn't got the luxury. Curious about Rochester though as I know little about it, but interested to see what's been done over the last few decades. Despite a cynical attitude, you'd probably view it as positive?

Dr_Phibes wrote:

BSmack wrote:Phibes, I'll be interested to see how far this Buffalo Renaissance goes when the younger professional class starts to breed.

To be honest, wasn't thinking of anything that immediate - moreover an arc of 20 - 30 years. The state of the city since - say, 1990 is remarkable. Hamilton is undergoing something similar, albeit with an engine like Toronto driving it. Buffalo hasn't got the luxury. Curious about Rochester though as I know little about it, but interested to see what's been done over the last few decades. Despite a cynical attitude, you'd probably view it as positive?

I hold zero hope for the City of Rochester. History has taught me that anytime the leadership of Rochester and Monroe County has been pressed to do something visionary or forward-thinking they have failed spectacularly.

The latest debacle is the demolition of a stretch of highway around the inner core of the city and then the organized distribution of said land to developers for the building of more housing for the professional classes.

BSmack wrote:'Holic,

Why do you hate The Establishment Clause?

What does the establishment clause have to do with this?

People should have the right to educate their children where they want. We, as a society have decided to have a school system that is funded by OUR tax dollars. We should have the right to direct our share of those dollars to the school of our choice. I used the catholic church as an example because they have a long history of running such systems in this country. But it could be run by Hindus, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, whatever.

So long as the government does not limit which of these groups you deal with, the Establishment Clause is alive and well.

Dinsdale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
I will never understand the liberal hatred of all things religious.

This is a great example of YHKYOA.

So, following the Constitution, and certainly the original intent of the Founders, is a "liberal" stance?

Care to back up and take another run at that one?

No need to take another run.

The Constitution does not ban religion.

It bans the federal government from favoring a particular religion over the others. I would think a libertarian leaning person like you would get that.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:'Holic,

Why do you hate The Establishment Clause?

What does the establishment clause have to do with this?

People should have the right to educate their children where they want. We, as a society have decided to have a school system that is funded by OUR tax dollars. We should have the right to direct our share of those dollars to the school of our choice. I used the catholic church as an example because they have a long history of running such systems in this country. But it could be run by Hindus, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, whatever.

So long as the government does not limit which of these groups you deal with, the Establishment Clause is alive and well.

People do have the choice to educate their children in any way they wish. The argument is over financing a religious education through secular tax dollars.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:'Holic,

Why do you hate The Establishment Clause?

What does the establishment clause have to do with this?

People should have the right to educate their children where they want. We, as a society have decided to have a school system that is funded by OUR tax dollars. We should have the right to direct our share of those dollars to the school of our choice. I used the catholic church as an example because they have a long history of running such systems in this country. But it could be run by Hindus, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, whatever.

So long as the government does not limit which of these groups you deal with, the Establishment Clause is alive and well.

People do have the choice to educate their children in any way they wish. The argument is over financing a religious education through secular tax dollars.

There is one small problem with your statement.

It is not a "religious education". It is an education which meets all local, state and federal mandates. It may have a bit of religion thrown in, but who gives a fukk? Hell, the catholic church doesn't even require that their students be catholic.

The bottom line here is that any education system not controlled directly by government is a threat to the public teacher unions and the democratic party is bought and paid for by them.

If you had to live in Rochester in the shitiest school district there and you had the option to send your kid to a private school, secular or religious, would you?

Of course you would.

Why won't you grant that choice to those that are stuck living there?

We all know why. Because you don't give two fukks about them, other than maybe on voting day. It is all about The Party.

And save me the bit about "taking tax dollars from the public system".

It isn't the fukking system's money. It is the money of taxpayers who ought tio have the ability to direct it as they see fit, for their children.

When someone says, B, your kid needs to go to St. Mathews elementary, then your constitutional rights are being violated, but that isn't happening. But you want to say, sorry ma'am, we know you want to send Johnny to St Mark's, but you're poor and can't afford it. He has to go to PS 25. Yeah, PS 25 sucks shit through a straw, but too fukkin' bad. You should have studied harder in school yourself, then you could live out in the burbs with B where the public school is pretty good.

I don't want my tax money going to religious schools. Which is what happens with vouchers.

BSmack wrote:I don't want my tax money going to religious schools. Which is what happens with vouchers.

If you don't send your kid to the religious school "your" tax dollars don't go to them.

If you could show the slightest bit of evidence that kids graduating from these schools had a higher chance of turning into religious zealot crackpots, you might have a point.

What we can show is that the average grad of a parochial school does better than average. They are more likely to go on to college.

So basically you got nothing other than making a major democratic donor happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BSmack wrote: The latest debacle is the demolition of a stretch of highway around the inner core of the city and then the organized distribution of said land to developers for the building of more housing for the professional classes.

Won't someone think of the drivers?

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:I don't want my tax money going to religious schools. Which is what happens with vouchers.

If you don't send your kid to the religious school "your" tax dollars don't go to them.

If you could show the slightest bit of evidence that kids graduating from these schools had a higher chance of turning into religious zealot crackpots, you might have a point.

What we can show is that the average grad of a parochial school does better than average. They are more likely to go on to college.

So basically you got nothing other than making a major democratic donor happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome. Can't wait until Muslim schools start up so we can start funneling tax money to those schools. I'm sure that will go over real well with the Trumpists and Roy Moore fans. Oh that's right, it won't because they're already opposing voucher dollars going to Muslim schools.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote: The latest debacle is the demolition of a stretch of highway around the inner core of the city and then the organized distribution of said land to developers for the building of more housing for the professional classes.

Won't someone think of the drivers?

The reclaiming isn't a bad idea. It's just a corrupt process that is implementing the reuse of the land. Like any one party system, it is corrupt as fuck.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:I don't want my tax money going to religious schools. Which is what happens with vouchers.

If you don't send your kid to the religious school "your" tax dollars don't go to them.

If you could show the slightest bit of evidence that kids graduating from these schools had a higher chance of turning into religious zealot crackpots, you might have a point.

What we can show is that the average grad of a parochial school does better than average. They are more likely to go on to college.

So basically you got nothing other than making a major democratic donor happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome. Can't wait until Muslim schools start up so we can start funneling tax money to those schools. I'm sure that will go over real well with the Trumpists and Roy Moore fans. Oh that's right, it won't because they're already opposing voucher dollars going to Muslim schools.

States have school regulations. If a Muslim school can meet these regulations, they should be allowed. If it can be shown that the schools are breeding grounds for radical shitstains, they shouldn't receive the money. This would go for a radical christian school as well.

Got any other stupid fukking questions that can't be easily solved?

The Constitution of the state I live in has much more specific language than the US Constitution, and your plan just ain't gonna fly.

And you know what, Dins? I am perfectly fine with that. I don't live in Orry gun. It is none of my fukking bidness how you folks run your affairs.

Too bad our federal government can't have the same philosophy. You know, actually skim through the 10th Amendment overy now and then to realize how people in Portland, OR chose to run their school system is none of their fukking bidness.

Our country followed this for the better part of 2 centuries and we invented the light bulb, aircraft, reasonably priced cars and a few billion other things. ANd along the way, we kicked in the fukk of a few countries that needed it.

Then Jimmah Carturd said, you know what, that ain't good enough. It needs federal "help".

And we been in a fukking tailspin ever since.

smackaholic wrote: States have school regulations. If a Muslim school can meet these regulations, they should be allowed. If it can be shown that the schools are breeding grounds for radical shitstains, they shouldn't receive the money. This would go for a radical christian school as well.

Got any other stupid fukking questions that can't be easily solved?

Haha, keep dreaming if you think it would ever go down like that. As soon as a Muslim school wants tuition dollars, white evangelical conservatives will cry to the high heavens about this.

You are at best naive and at worst one dumb fucking tard.

smackaholic wrote: Our country followed this for the better part of 2 centuries and we invented the light bulb, aircraft, reasonably priced cars and a few billion other things. ANd along the way, we kicked in the fukk of a few countries that needed it.

Then Jimmah Carturd said, you know what, that ain't good enough.

Try 153 years, JC was 18. Oh and the light bulb was invented in England, 45 years before Edison was born. Any other fake news you want to puke up?

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote: Our country followed this for the better part of 2 centuries and we invented the light bulb, aircraft, reasonably priced cars and a few billion other things. ANd along the way, we kicked in the fukk of a few countries that needed it.

Then Jimmah Carturd said, you know what, that ain't good enough.

Try 153 years, JC was 18. Oh and the light bulb was invented in England, 45 years before Edison was born. Any other fake news you want to puke up?

OK, douche, Edison invented the commercially viable light bulb.

The fed government involvement in primary education prior to the D of E was minimal.

Way to move the goal posts.

This is like an Autism vs. Down Syndrome slap fight...

Spit it out dumbfuck.

Moving Sale wrote:Way to move the goal posts.

WTF are you talking about?

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Way to move the goal posts.

WTF are you talking about?

How stupid you are. The 10th am was raped long before JC ever got into office you fucking hack.

schmick wrote:People who do not have children in public schools should not have to pay taxes towards public schools. You shouldn't burden others with your kids.

He said (for the 50th time) after his kid stopped being in public school.
Do you have any ORIGINAL thoughts?

Moving Sale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Way to move the goal posts.

WTF are you talking about?

How stupid you are. The 10th am was raped long before JC ever got into office you fucking hack.

I will never, ever understand how you could possibly get by in a courtroom. Could you please link me up with where I said that JC was the first guy to shit all over the 10th amendment?

I don't know US legal history well enough to pinpoint the first time. If I had to guess, I'd prolly go with early 20th century, maybe TR?

It is quite certain that the 10th had plenty skid marks on it by the time the peanut farmer got there, mostly from FDR and LBJ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moving Sale wrote:

schmick wrote:People who do not have children in public schools should not have to pay taxes towards public schools. You shouldn't burden others with your kids.

He said (for the 50th time) after his kid stopped being in public school.
Do you have any ORIGINAL thoughts?

My bad.

I thought that statement was aimed at me.

Yeah, shmick calling for that change after his kids are done is sorta fukked up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I went back and reread my posts thinking maybe I just worded something poorly.

Nope

The midget is a reading comp fail. My statement was clearly concerning the Feds getting balls deep in education. My mention of the 10th was just the reason why it is unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and yet you still feel like popping off about how I do my job. Did you ever think that it's that you are a stupid fuck who can barely read?

The standard "you're a fukking idiot" response to explain his prior post.

You can count on it like the sun rising in the morning.

How does that tactic work in court?

I realize that it wouldn't work particularly well, but based on what I see on this board, it is the only tool in your bag.

Nice white flag you stupid fuck.

smackaholic wrote:I will never understand the liberal hatred of all things religious. The Catholic Church fukks up plenty of things, but they have a pretty damn good track record of running elementary and high schools. And they do it cheaper than public schools.

Bullshit. Absolute utter bullshit.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Got any other stupid fukking questions that can't be easily solved?

You are at best naive and at worst one dumb fucking tard.

I'm fairly certain he is both.

schmick wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: He said (for the 50th time) after his kid stopped being in public school.
Do you have any ORIGINAL thoughts?

My bad.

I thought that statement was aimed at me.

Yeah, shmick calling for that change after his kids are done is sorta fukked up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My son went to private school

Wasn't aware of that.

Then you can say this without hypocracy and it doesn't matter when your kids went to school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So first it was he went to private school the last 7yrs. Now it's he never went to public school. Make up your mind you lying fuck.

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I will never understand the liberal hatred of all things religious. The Catholic Church fukks up plenty of things, but they have a pretty damn good track record of running elementary and high schools. And they do it cheaper than public schools.

Bullshit. Absolute utter bullshit.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Got any other stupid fukking questions that can't be easily solved?

You are at best naive and at worst one dumb fucking tard.

I'm fairly certain he is both.

I can't speak for flyoverville where teacher salaries aren't as high as they are here, but in Ct. urban areas get more spending per capita than the burbs or private schools. Now, I will admit that the urban schools have challenges that other schools don't. And that is part of the problem. The public schools are burdened with the poor little bastards from disfunctional homes. And when there are too many of them, they drag the whole fukking system down. So, if you are poor, but from a family that actually does value education, you should have the option of going to a school where you'll be able to learn up to your potential.

Basically what I am talking about is educational triage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I will never understand the liberal hatred of all things religious. The Catholic Church fukks up plenty of things, but they have a pretty damn good track record of running elementary and high schools. And they do it cheaper than public schools.

Bullshit. Absolute utter bullshit.

Got any data to back that up? I know two private HS teachers. At their religious based school the pay scale is lower than the public schools they left. However, they took the jobs where they were able to teach students as they saw fit and not teach to the middle of a standardized exam.

My mom is another example of a teacher leaving the public system for the private system. She lost some money in years of service retirement and salary but taught longer than she was planning since she had the backing of the Administration and didn’t have the discipline issues of the public school.

So besides the teacher’s lower salaries, lack of a pension, there are far fewer staff positions when compared to a local school district. Just wondering where the additional costs come from.

Left Seater wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I will never understand the liberal hatred of all things religious. The Catholic Church fukks up plenty of things, but they have a pretty damn good track record of running elementary and high schools. And they do it cheaper than public schools.

Bullshit. Absolute utter bullshit.

Got any data to back that up? I know two private HS teachers. At their religious based school the pay scale is lower than the public schools they left. However, they took the jobs where they were able to teach students as they saw fit and not teach to the middle of a standardized exam.

My mom is another example of a teacher leaving the public system for the private system. She lost some money in years of service retirement and salary but taught longer than she was planning since she had the backing of the Administration and didn’t have the discipline issues of the public school.

So besides the teacher’s lower salaries, lack of a pension, there are far fewer staff positions when compared to a local school district. Just wondering where the additional costs come from.

He can't back it up.

Private schools do more for less, partly because they don't have to deal with troublesome kids but also because they don't have ridiculous levels of admin staff.

Charter schools are somewhat of a compromise. They still have the teacher unions and other things that screw up traditional public schools, but they at least have the ability to cherry pick kids. They should be part of the equation where appropriate, but so should private secular and parochial schools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't talk about private school profitability without talking about tax exemptions that religious welfare institutions enjoy.