Young black males and public education.

st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
joken said:
There is very little free market education in this country in grades 1-12, and that is in fact part of the problem. Unions have a huge influence on the quality of education regardless of demographics.
Click to expand...
Look no farther than Detroit to debunk your theory...

Our new secretary of education, Betsy Devos, has graced our state of Michigan with her "school of choice" philosophy, pitting private charter schools against traditional public schools, and guess how it's turned out? After almost 20 years, it's been an abject failure. It's lined the pockets of the 1%, so I suppose she has accomplished what she's set out to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-michigan-school-experiment-232399
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Look no farther than Detroit to debunk your theory...

Our new secretary of education, Betsy Devos, has graced our state of Michigan with her "school of choice" philosophy, pitting private charter schools against traditional public schools, and guess how it's turned out? After almost 20 years, it's been an abject failure. It's lined the pockets of the 1%, so I suppose she has accomplished what she's set out to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-michigan-school-experiment-232399
Click to expand...

Schools of "no choice" perpetuate a form of slavery.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
So you consciously signed your kids into "slavery"?

What a shitty disability claiming "tax is theft" cuck parent you are.
Click to expand...

What is property ? Do you own yourself ? Do you own the product of your labor?

If somebody else claims the product of your labor...are you at least in some way enslaved?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
explain the duress you were under on your signing day. How many guns were pointed at your head.
Click to expand...

You are combining two separate things into one for the convenience of trying to validate a flawed argument. Simply because something happens, doesn't mean the parties affected by it, agreed to it

A person can buy or trade for something another person agrees to, like a house, without endorsing the conditions a nonowner forcibly insists exist upon the engaging parties.

For instance, if you had a garden of, oh I don't know, let's say potatoes and you agreed to sell some to @Unclebaldrick , but I insisted that each time you did, I had a right to demand a sum of money from you absent any explicit agreement we might have, I would be in the wrong wouldn't you agree ?

The reason why I would be wrong, is I am not a party to that transaction and don't own the potatoes. If I forcibly become a party to that transaction, I would be behaving like a thuggish thief. So would anyone else who did that, even if they claim they are "government".
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
To own property in the United States you must agree to pay property taxes.

You're in no way obliged to purchase property in the United States, so where is the source of the duress?
Click to expand...

Your first statement is a contradiction. Proceeding to build an argument based in a contradiction means you argument is flawed.

You assume that a person can both "own" something, but another party can dictate the terms of ownership to the point that the alleged ownership
has become something less than ownership. One of the primary elements of ownership, is control over.

Using that logic...your government owns you...slave.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You are combining two separate things into one for the convenience of trying to validate a flawed argument. Simply because something happens, doesn't mean the parties affected by it, agreed to it

A person can buy or trade for something another person agrees to, like a house, without endorsing the conditions a nonowner forcibly insists exist upon the engaging parties.

For instance, if you had a garden of, oh I don't know, let's say potatoes and you agreed to sell some to @Unclebaldrick , but I insisted that each time you did, I had a right to demand a sum of money from you absent any explicit agreement we might have, I would be in the wrong wouldn't you agree ?

The reason why I would be wrong, is I am not a party to that transaction and don't own the potatoes. If I forcibly become a party to that transaction, I would be behaving like a thuggish thief. So would anyone else who did that, even if they claim they are "government".
Click to expand...
were you forced to buy a home ? If so by who ?
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Your first statement is a contradiction. Proceeding to build an argument based in a contradiction means you argument is flawed.

You assume that a person can both "own" something, but another party can dictate the terms of ownership to the point that the alleged ownership
has become something less than ownership. One of the primary elements of ownership, is control over.

Using that logic...your government owns you...slave.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah Rob.

Answer the questions and stop deflecting, the weakness of your argument is showing.

You preach about the importance of contracts, so just fucking follow the one you signed and pay your taxes.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
were you forced to buy a home ? If so by who ?
Click to expand...

Your attempts at being clever, well, they lack erm cleverness.

Nobody is contesting the mutual agreement I made when I bought a house. The issue being contested is the idea that a third party has any right to forcibly extract tribute and "sell" me so called services, many of which I don't use, don't want and never agreed to.

Try to stay on point please.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Blah blah blah Rob.

Answer the questions and stop deflecting, the weakness of your argument is showing.

You preach about the importance of contracts, so just fucking follow the one you signed and pay your taxes.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is a "contract" can be valid if one party was placed under duress ?

So, if I showed up at your house and grabbed your scrawny neck with my powerful arms and dunked your head under water until you "agreed" to something you preferred not to do, that our "agreement" is valid ?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Your attempts at being clever, well, they lack erm cleverness.

Nobody is contesting the mutual agreement I made when I bought a house. The issue being contested is the idea that a third party has any right to forcibly extract tribute and "sell" me so called services, many of which I don't use, don't want and never agreed to.

Try to stay on point please.
Click to expand...
you were aware that you had to pay property tax when you bought a home. YES
You then proceeded to buy a home.
No one forced you to buy home.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So what you're saying is a "contract" can be valid if one party was placed under duress ?

So, if I showed up at your house and grabbed your scrawny neck with my powerful arms and dunked your head under water until you "agreed" to something you preferred not to do, that our "agreement" is valid ?
Click to expand...
no duress when you purchased your home. You could have just walked away.
You are just a bum who does not what to pay into a system that you have used and benefited from
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top