Public Schools

How many of us at one time attended public schools

  • It taught me the basics

    Votes: 12 23.1%

  • I went for the lunches and to socialize

    Votes: 4 7.7%

  • Never. I hate public schools

    Votes: 2 3.8%

  • 2 + 2 = about a pound

    Votes: 10 19.2%

  • I was home schooled

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I actually enjoyed going to public school

    Votes: 24 46.2%
  • Total voters
    52
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Quote where I'm against christian school nitwit. I would suggest you stay out of other peoples conversations. You never take the time to read the whole thread. You just jump in at the last page thinking you have a clue as to what we all are talking about.
Click to expand...
did you see red get cut to pieces out in toke and talk? check out the ignore buck thread and you will see.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Quote where I'm against christian school nitwit. I would suggest you stay out of other peoples conversations. You never take the time to read the whole thread. You just jump in at the last page thinking you have a clue as to what we all are talking about.
Click to expand...
You deny now that you are anti-religion? This isn't "your" conversation. Tell the truth, you don't like me expressing a viewpoint that differs from yours.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
You deny now that you are anti-religion? This isn't "your" conversation. Tell the truth, you don't like me expressing a viewpoint that differs from yours.
Click to expand...
I'm I religious ...fuck no
I'm I against those who are...fuck no
I respect others who have different view points. I have no respect for you because you are a liar, unfit father, and a awful husband.
You speak on thing in which you are clueless. Now hush whilst I read how badly you got owned
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I'm I religious ...fuck no
I'm I against those who are...fuck no
I respect others who have different view points. I have no respect for you because you are a liar, unfit father, and a awful husband.
You speak on thing in which you are clueless. Now hush whilst I read how badly you got owned
Click to expand...
You call the religious "ignorant fools". That is not respect. You clearly do not respect those with differing viewpoints. You call them liar, unfit father, and awful husband. You have no knowlege what-so-ever of my abilities as a husband or father, yet are happy to repeat what you know to be lies. You call any argument that differs from your viewpoint a lie, so your judgement there is immaterial. You don't honor your bets, either.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Wow so you won't answer a simple question that was posed to you first. I think I know why you refuse to answer, but let us try once more.
Do you believe you are forced to stop at a red light or do you stop at a red light because you know it is the best thing to do
Click to expand...
Rob Roy, Doer, Harrekin, Red, all those know-nothings will never answer a direct question a direct response, and likely will flat out avoid the question in its entirety. That's part of their strategy. They learn it from the likes of Hannity and the rest of Faux Noise.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
You call the religious "ignorant fools". That is not respect. You clearly do not respect those with differing viewpoints. You call them liar, unfit father, and awful husband. You have no knowlege what-so-ever of my abilities as a husband or father, yet are happy to repeat what you know to be lies. You call any argument that differs from your viewpoint a lie, so your judgement there is immaterial. You don't honor your bets, either.
Click to expand...
Red you allowed your kids and wife to die in a fire that you could have prevented by being a responsible parent and husband. You never answered if you worked on the car your first wife died in ?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Red you allowed your kids and wife to die in a fire that you could have prevented by being a responsible parent and husband. You never answered if you worked on the car your first wife died in ?
Click to expand...
You want to make this about my family now? I didn't "allow' anyone to die, no more than you "allowed" your children/wife/parents/neighbors/several million a year to die. Your assumption that I was irresponsible is solely based on your hatred for me, not in any fact at all. I answered your question about my wife's car. I said she didn't drive or own a car. You didn't ask about any other car. I see no need to defend myself against obvious slander. If you can't debate my statement of Miss Perfect English jumping to unwarrented conclusions, just say so. Demonizing me doesn't change the accuracy of my statement. Since you have been unable to counter that statement, it stands as accurate. But keep making up shit about my family, it gains you so much respect.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
force is needed to control idiots who like burning down homes
Click to expand...

Defensive force can be necessary and is justifiable. Offensive force is not. The business model used by your nanny state is based in the application of force, usually offensive force. In fact they couldn't survive without using offensive force. Meaning their methods are the same as a common thug. This is irrefutable as the evidence is omnipresent.

That begs the question, if you or I use offensive force which we both acknowledge as wrong, why do you ignore and grant a pass to your nanny state when it uses offensive force on a routine basis? What makes them able to do something thuggish ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
ya mean the property tax that you said you knew about and chose to accept voluntrily and without coercion as part of your decision to buy your house where you did?

that's called consent, not theft you fucking retard.
Click to expand...
Property tax ? Oxymoronic. If a person owns something, yet another person exerts elements of control over it backed by threats of force..who really holds the ownership?

Also your examples lack substance and can easily be refuted Mr. False Dichotomous Floor Shitter Guy.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i agree, that's why we have civil rights.

to defend the minorities you are racist against from your racist aggression.
Click to expand...
Not really. Civil rights while well intended, do not abide by the use of justifiable defensive force. Instead they are based in a kind of offensive force. They deny a property owner control of his own property, under threat of force for noncompliance. This is irrefutable.

Had a racist or any other person gone to another persons property and done the same thing as the Federal government, wrest control of it from the owner, you would agree that is an assault on the property owner.

The distinction is, you agree on the use of offensive force, when it punishes people that you don't like. That means you are a hypocrite.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
every parent in america has the option to move to somewhere with no property taxes where they can homeschool their children.

instead, they overwhelmingly choose to move to areas with the highest property taxes and then they vote for tax increases upon themselves and send their children to public schools.


THE FREE MARKET HAS SPOKEN.
Click to expand...
You are wrong...as usual.

Please explain how a free market is present when the government is involved both directly and indirectly.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
that proves that schools are perfect for social conditioning. europeans have figured this out and teach kids to share and work as a team, testing is conspicuously absent
Click to expand...
Yeah, they dont do testing in schools in Europe...

You are so dumb, you are really dumb, for real.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Defensive force can be necessary and is justifiable. Offensive force is not. The business model used by your nanny state is based in the application of force, usually offensive force. In fact they couldn't survive without using offensive force. Meaning their methods are the same as a common thug. This is irrefutable as the evidence is omnipresent.

That begs the question, if you or I use offensive force which we both acknowledge as wrong, why do you ignore and grant a pass to your nanny state when it uses offensive force on a routine basis? What makes them able to do something thuggish ?
Click to expand...
do you view the education of our society as a defensive or offensive force...or both. Do you think an educated society works for the better of civilization or does education makes civilization worst ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
do you view the education of our society as a defensive or offensive force...or both. Do you think an educated society works for the better of civilization or does education makes civilization worst ?
Click to expand...
Wrong question.

What you should be asking is, if a government "education" is so good, why does it require forcing people to pay for it and to attend?

Education should be about how to think....not what to think.



A pseudo free market given not even half a chance has ALREADY demonstrated a higher level of efficacy than government education. Not that the efficacy of something can justify it, the means should also be examined. Therefore government schools fail, BOTH.

Also, you seem stymied by the points I make above in previous posts and you never seem to answer my questions. I think you are a fine example of the public school system Comrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top