It's unconscionable to decry a breach in principle of "personal responsibility" when a "latte tax" can help the children of the poor. Who really gives a flying **** about another conservative principle being sacrificed for practical reasons. The tax will send a message to the poor that no matter what, government will help raise their children.
And they need the help, God dammit.
If people don't want the poor to reproduce, then I suggest subsidizing contraception and sex education in addition to any of the current measures. If the government already does that, then subsidize more of the cost while educating more of the poor.
The latte tax is blatant class warfare and it disgusts me. Of course, the bastards who devised it used the magic phrase that let's any bullshit legislation pass in this country: IT'S FOR THE CHILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDREN!!!!! No, it's not. It's for irresponsible single mothers.
Oh yeah, and Bush's leave no child behind plan leaves plenty of children behind. I don't even disagree with that. Not all kids are cut out for college or even high school. I just want a little more honesty is all. Yeah, I know that's the one thing I'll never get.
Is there anything that isn't "unconscionable" to you and bunge when "helping" the poor?
Why do they need the help? Who says that two parents working is better than one or that lack of personalized attention from a parent is preferable to financial gain?
I don't make these declarations from on high. I have worked as a teacher in these neighborhoods for over a decade.
Especially among the hispanic population, the trend is clearly sacrifice financial gain for parenting. This trend is so clear among this group, that stay at home mothers went up as a percentage of the population for the first time in over two decades.
In your view it is helping. In my view it is cultural imperialism. Likewise I have also worked as a day care/day camp worker. The ratio for workers is 15 children to 1 adult. Why would you advocate a child getting up to 15 times less personal attention from an adult just so a mother or father can go slave away for an employer who will just exploit them. (Surely in your view they must be exploited or else they wouldn't be poor in the first place right?)
Double the exploitation, 15 times less attention and anyone who stands against it is "unconscionable." Please....
My wife and I have decided to forgo a second income so that she may stay home with our children and give them personalized attention. To make this choice has cost us over $200,000 of lost income. However we prefer our children to have our attention instead of any adult who had taken 12 units at a community college and wandered into a day care center to earn a whole $8-9 an hour.
Your presumption of superiority is insulting. Your questioning of the decisions, and the cultural traits that lead to them is even more so. Advocating that the poor send two adults off does not insure they are any better off. I'm sure you have yet another array of governmental programs to assist the traits their children show due to lack of adult interaction and attention. I'm sure you will attempt to medicate them for their "ADD" give them fatty, crappy "free" cafeteria school lunches and breakfasts which contribute to the growing rate of obesity, etc.
Likewise I'm sure you will advocate "afterschool programs, etc. to address again, the lack of individualized attention from their parents.
Your real agenda of course is seperate the child from their parents. Then you can instill whatever values, etc. you desire. I know I'll declare it "unconsciounable" when you advocate a tax for an afterschool "youth brigade."
Nick
It would take me too long to point out what is wrong with your vile post. However, I do wonder what you advocate for single parents. Do you support welfare for them so that they can stay with their children? I doubt it.
Perhaps instead I could interest you in a regime of punishment for the custodial parent for having had a child and then ending up as a single parent. Or perhaps the children could be killed and eaten, reducing expenses for everyone and providing a source of cheap protein. Call it my 'modest proposal'.
Oh jesus christ. What happened to personal responsibility? LAZY POOR PARENTS SHOULDN'T BE SUBSIDIZED FOR POPPING OUT KIDS! Can't afford a kid? DON'T FVCKING HAVE ONE!
Stop taxing me so you can raise your kids.
Hell, give incentives for those poor people NOT TO HAVE KIDS! It will do society as a whole a favor.
So you really think people have kids because they can get a discount on day care?
Like with school until you're 18 (or is it 17?) and medical attention, the courts have decided that even as a kid with shithole parents you're entitled to some opportunities. Just like you've got roads to drive your car on even if your parents were complete ****ups.
So you really think people have kids because they can get a discount on day care?
It just makes it that much easier. It's one less thing these idiot teenage single mothers have to worry about when deciding not to do the right thing and send the kid off through adoption.
Quote:
Like with school until you're 18 (or is it 17?) and medical attention, the courts have decided that even as a kid with shithole parents you're entitled to some opportunities. Just like you've got roads to drive your car on even if your parents were complete ****ups. [/B]
Right. You are entitled to an education. Not fvcking daycare. Furthermore, these poor kids get better equipment, supplies, and books in school because of programs like Title I. Rich kids get to go to nice private schools or have all the money in the world for tutors. Poor kids get the best materials because if the schools they attend stop spending the money every year, whether they need it or not, it dries up. Meanwhile the middle class, as usual, get left behind.
This is not the only thread in which you've done this. You take a worst case scenario and use it as a blanket example for every instance. Then you judge based on this and naturally come up with a severly biased point of view.
A latte tax is for irresponsible single mothers. And what about the responsible ones that can't afford day care and vegetables? I assume they don't exist in your warped sense of reality.
This is not the only thread in which you've done this. You take a worst case scenario and use it as a blanket example for every instance. Then you judge based on this and naturally come up with a severly biased point of view.
A latte tax is for irresponsible single mothers. And what about the responsible ones that can't afford day care and vegetables? I assume they don't exist in your warped sense of reality.
Their day care shouldn't be subsidized. They should have thought of that choice before they went through with having the kid.
Is there anything that isn't "unconscionable" to you and bunge when "helping" the poor?
Why do they need the help? Who says that two parents working is better than one or that lack of personalized attention from a parent is preferable to financial gain?
I don't make these declarations from on high. I have worked as a teacher in these neighborhoods for over a decade.
Especially among the hispanic population, the trend is clearly sacrifice financial gain for parenting. This trend is so clear among this group, that stay at home mothers went up as a percentage of the population for the first time in over two decades.
In your view it is helping. In my view it is cultural imperialism. Likewise I have also worked as a day care/day camp worker. The ratio for workers is 15 children to 1 adult. Why would you advocate a child getting up to 15 times less personal attention from an adult just so a mother or father can go slave away for an employer who will just exploit them. (Surely in your view they must be exploited or else they wouldn't be poor in the first place right?)
Double the exploitation, 15 times less attention and anyone who stands against it is "unconscionable." Please....
My wife and I have decided to forgo a second income so that she may stay home with our children and give them personalized attention. To make this choice has cost us over $200,000 of lost income. However we prefer our children to have our attention instead of any adult who had taken 12 units at a community college and wandered into a day care center to earn a whole $8-9 an hour.
Your presumption of superiority is insulting. Your questioning of the decisions, and the cultural traits that lead to them is even more so. Advocating that the poor send two adults off does not insure they are any better off. I'm sure you have yet another array of governmental programs to assist the traits their children show due to lack of adult interaction and attention. I'm sure you will attempt to medicate them for their "ADD" give them fatty, crappy "free" cafeteria school lunches and breakfasts which contribute to the growing rate of obesity, etc.
Likewise I'm sure you will advocate "afterschool programs, etc. to address again, the lack of individualized attention from their parents.
Your real agenda of course is seperate the child from their parents. Then you can instill whatever values, etc. you desire. I know I'll declare it "unconsciounable" when you advocate a tax for an afterschool "youth brigade."
Nick
That's the biggest bunch of dishonest bullshit I've ever heard. You should just admit that you don't believe in any additional welfare, not that advocates of the "latte tax" have a "superiority complex" that "exploits the poor" while imposing "cultural imperialism."
Let's repeat those accusations:
Supporters of the latte tax:
Superiority Complex
Exploit the Poor
Cultural Imperialism
"Real Goal" is Child Separation
The pseudo-psych evaluation was an especially nice touch.
Their day care shouldn't be subsidized. They should have thought of that choice before they went through with having the kid.
They may have been well enough off when they had a kid.
You can say "their day care shouldn't be subsidized" as much as you like, but that doesn't make it so. Should grade school, jr. high and high school education not be subsidized either?
It just makes it that much easier. It's one less thing these idiot teenage single mothers have to worry about when deciding not to do the right thing and send the kid off through adoption.
Right. You are entitled to an education. Not fvcking daycare. Furthermore, these poor kids get better equipment, supplies, and books in school because of programs like Title I. Rich kids get to go to nice private schools or have all the money in the world for tutors. Poor kids get the best materials because if the schools they attend stop spending the money every year, whether they need it or not, it dries up. Meanwhile the middle class, as usual, get left behind.
Last time I checked, the poor were underrepresented in higher education and went to the worst-funded high-schools. Make no mistake, the poor get left behind..in droves.
Last time I checked, the poor were underrepresented in higher education and went to the worst-funded high-schools. Make no mistake, the poor get left behind..in droves.
That's because of misallocation of funds. The money is there. Believe me. I've seen it in person.
They may have been well enough off when they had a kid.
You can say "their day care shouldn't be subsidized" as much as you like, but that doesn't make it so. Should grade school, jr. high and high school education not be subsidized either?
Everyone has a right to an education. Everyone doesn't have a right to babysitting.
It would take me too long to point out what is wrong with your vile post. However, I do wonder what you advocate for single parents. Do you support welfare for them so that they can stay with their children? I doubt it.
Perhaps instead I could interest you in a regime of punishment for the custodial parent for having had a child and then ending up as a single parent. Or perhaps the children could be killed and eaten, reducing expenses for everyone and providing a source of cheap protein. Call it my 'modest proposal'.
What do I advocate for single parents? How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement.
As for supporting welfare so they can stay with their children? Why would I do that?
How about a little initiative instead of governmetn intervention? How about the nice government provide a bulletin board where the single women can sign up to watch EACH OTHERS kids so they can all go off to work.
I'm not going to feel bad for them. Having a child is a choice. They made it. Having it with someone too irresponsible to marry, assist, etc. just makes it a worse choice.
That's the biggest bunch of dishonest bullshit I've ever heard. You should just admit that you don't believe in any additional welfare, not that advocates of the "latte tax" have a "superiority complex" that "exploits the poor" while imposing "cultural imperialism."
Let's repeat those accusations:
Supporters of the latte tax:Superiority Complex Exploit the Poor Cultural Imperialism "Real Goal" is Child Separation The pseudo-psych evaluation was an especially nice touch.
Oh good job. It's the for the children and you're unconsciousable routine. Followed by "no everything you said is bullshit" defense.
Good reasoning you're showing lately Shawn. No wonder you keep changing your handle.
I note that you have not addressed a single point I raised except for by dismissing them as "bullshit." I'm not worried though because this is becoming a trend with you. I'll look
Quote:
Argumentum ad nauseam
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it.
Superiority complex - You don't say day care is better than a parent and thus we should provide it. You say it is right because you are conscionable and those against it are unconscionable.
Exploit the poor - If you don't enough working poor what do you do? You convince them to ignore their kids by shoving them into day care and now you have even more $8 an hour workers. Make sure to send them easy credit as well.
Cultural imperialism is right on. Latin attitudes are not always the same as U.S. attitudes. They still have more children per family than the average American family and the mothers are still more likely to stay home. If they choose to change it themselves that is one issue, but you having the government provide a service is different. Other positionss you can take, medical care, education, etc. can at least be argued to improve on a person. Unless you want to claim day care improves on a mom, then it has different rationals. I'm sure you have a lot more experience with hispanics up in Pennsylvania than I do in Southern California but I'll risk that.
As for the real goal being child seperation. What else could it be? I already see these children more than their working parents see them. It is sad but true. You want to compound the problem by moving them to day care which starts the trend earlier in life. Moves it into hours before and after school, and allows that seperation to continue during vacation hours as well.
Also you show your hypocriticalness. In another thread you argue that fast food restaurants are liable for their customers eating habits. Who do you think eats out more, a family with one working parent or two? I mention this because I also noted that cafeteria food is no better than fast food and some kids eat it plus fast food for dinner. Of course that is the nature of institutionalizing things that shouldnt' be.
IF this country put even half of the money, research and effort we put into the military... into education, the whole conversation would be moot.
This country has to get its priorities straight.
This country used to be about potential and opportunities.
Why do you intentionally confuse federal and state priorities?
Gee my state spends 40% of the budget on education and doesn't have a standing military. Oh gee most states are that way. Oh gee the federal government isn't that way.
Also you show your hypocriticalness. In another thread you argue that fast food restaurants are liable for their customers eating habits. Who do you think eats out more, a family with one working parent or two? I mention this because I also noted that cafeteria food is no better than fast food and some kids eat it plus fast food for dinner. Of course that is the nature of institutionalizing things that shouldnt' be.
Address what I type, don't dismiss and repeat.
Nick
*Ahem*....I think you meant "hypocrisy."
And I'm free to disagree with the teacher, Mr. Nick.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It's unconscionable to decry a breach in principle of "personal responsibility" when a "latte tax" can help the children of the poor. Who really gives a flying **** about another conservative principle being sacrificed for practical reasons. The tax will send a message to the poor that no matter what, government will help raise their children.
And they need the help, God dammit.
If people don't want the poor to reproduce, then I suggest subsidizing contraception and sex education in addition to any of the current measures. If the government already does that, then subsidize more of the cost while educating more of the poor.
The latte tax is blatant class warfare and it disgusts me. Of course, the bastards who devised it used the magic phrase that let's any bullshit legislation pass in this country: IT'S FOR THE CHILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDREN!!!!! No, it's not. It's for irresponsible single mothers.
Oh yeah, and Bush's leave no child behind plan leaves plenty of children behind. I don't even disagree with that. Not all kids are cut out for college or even high school. I just want a little more honesty is all. Yeah, I know that's the one thing I'll never get.
Originally posted by trumptman
Is there anything that isn't "unconscionable" to you and bunge when "helping" the poor?
Why do they need the help? Who says that two parents working is better than one or that lack of personalized attention from a parent is preferable to financial gain?
I don't make these declarations from on high. I have worked as a teacher in these neighborhoods for over a decade.
Especially among the hispanic population, the trend is clearly sacrifice financial gain for parenting. This trend is so clear among this group, that stay at home mothers went up as a percentage of the population for the first time in over two decades.
In your view it is helping. In my view it is cultural imperialism. Likewise I have also worked as a day care/day camp worker. The ratio for workers is 15 children to 1 adult. Why would you advocate a child getting up to 15 times less personal attention from an adult just so a mother or father can go slave away for an employer who will just exploit them. (Surely in your view they must be exploited or else they wouldn't be poor in the first place right?)
Double the exploitation, 15 times less attention and anyone who stands against it is "unconscionable." Please....
My wife and I have decided to forgo a second income so that she may stay home with our children and give them personalized attention. To make this choice has cost us over $200,000 of lost income. However we prefer our children to have our attention instead of any adult who had taken 12 units at a community college and wandered into a day care center to earn a whole $8-9 an hour.
Your presumption of superiority is insulting. Your questioning of the decisions, and the cultural traits that lead to them is even more so. Advocating that the poor send two adults off does not insure they are any better off. I'm sure you have yet another array of governmental programs to assist the traits their children show due to lack of adult interaction and attention. I'm sure you will attempt to medicate them for their "ADD" give them fatty, crappy "free" cafeteria school lunches and breakfasts which contribute to the growing rate of obesity, etc.
Likewise I'm sure you will advocate "afterschool programs, etc. to address again, the lack of individualized attention from their parents.
Your real agenda of course is seperate the child from their parents. Then you can instill whatever values, etc. you desire. I know I'll declare it "unconsciounable" when you advocate a tax for an afterschool "youth brigade."
Nick
It would take me too long to point out what is wrong with your vile post. However, I do wonder what you advocate for single parents. Do you support welfare for them so that they can stay with their children? I doubt it.
Perhaps instead I could interest you in a regime of punishment for the custodial parent for having had a child and then ending up as a single parent. Or perhaps the children could be killed and eaten, reducing expenses for everyone and providing a source of cheap protein. Call it my 'modest proposal'.
Originally posted by BR
Oh jesus christ. What happened to personal responsibility? LAZY POOR PARENTS SHOULDN'T BE SUBSIDIZED FOR POPPING OUT KIDS! Can't afford a kid? DON'T FVCKING HAVE ONE!
Stop taxing me so you can raise your kids.
Hell, give incentives for those poor people NOT TO HAVE KIDS! It will do society as a whole a favor.
So you really think people have kids because they can get a discount on day care?
Like with school until you're 18 (or is it 17?) and medical attention, the courts have decided that even as a kid with shithole parents you're entitled to some opportunities. Just like you've got roads to drive your car on even if your parents were complete ****ups.
Originally posted by bunge
So you really think people have kids because they can get a discount on day care?
It just makes it that much easier. It's one less thing these idiot teenage single mothers have to worry about when deciding not to do the right thing and send the kid off through adoption.
Like with school until you're 18 (or is it 17?) and medical attention, the courts have decided that even as a kid with shithole parents you're entitled to some opportunities. Just like you've got roads to drive your car on even if your parents were complete ****ups. [/B]
Right. You are entitled to an education. Not fvcking daycare. Furthermore, these poor kids get better equipment, supplies, and books in school because of programs like Title I. Rich kids get to go to nice private schools or have all the money in the world for tutors. Poor kids get the best materials because if the schools they attend stop spending the money every year, whether they need it or not, it dries up. Meanwhile the middle class, as usual, get left behind.
Originally posted by BR
It's for irresponsible single mothers.
This is not the only thread in which you've done this. You take a worst case scenario and use it as a blanket example for every instance. Then you judge based on this and naturally come up with a severly biased point of view.
A latte tax is for irresponsible single mothers. And what about the responsible ones that can't afford day care and vegetables? I assume they don't exist in your warped sense of reality.
Originally posted by bunge
This is not the only thread in which you've done this. You take a worst case scenario and use it as a blanket example for every instance. Then you judge based on this and naturally come up with a severly biased point of view.
A latte tax is for irresponsible single mothers. And what about the responsible ones that can't afford day care and vegetables? I assume they don't exist in your warped sense of reality.
Their day care shouldn't be subsidized. They should have thought of that choice before they went through with having the kid.
Originally posted by trumptman
Is there anything that isn't "unconscionable" to you and bunge when "helping" the poor?
Why do they need the help? Who says that two parents working is better than one or that lack of personalized attention from a parent is preferable to financial gain?
I don't make these declarations from on high. I have worked as a teacher in these neighborhoods for over a decade.
Especially among the hispanic population, the trend is clearly sacrifice financial gain for parenting. This trend is so clear among this group, that stay at home mothers went up as a percentage of the population for the first time in over two decades.
In your view it is helping. In my view it is cultural imperialism. Likewise I have also worked as a day care/day camp worker. The ratio for workers is 15 children to 1 adult. Why would you advocate a child getting up to 15 times less personal attention from an adult just so a mother or father can go slave away for an employer who will just exploit them. (Surely in your view they must be exploited or else they wouldn't be poor in the first place right?)
Double the exploitation, 15 times less attention and anyone who stands against it is "unconscionable." Please....
My wife and I have decided to forgo a second income so that she may stay home with our children and give them personalized attention. To make this choice has cost us over $200,000 of lost income. However we prefer our children to have our attention instead of any adult who had taken 12 units at a community college and wandered into a day care center to earn a whole $8-9 an hour.
Your presumption of superiority is insulting. Your questioning of the decisions, and the cultural traits that lead to them is even more so. Advocating that the poor send two adults off does not insure they are any better off. I'm sure you have yet another array of governmental programs to assist the traits their children show due to lack of adult interaction and attention. I'm sure you will attempt to medicate them for their "ADD" give them fatty, crappy "free" cafeteria school lunches and breakfasts which contribute to the growing rate of obesity, etc.
Likewise I'm sure you will advocate "afterschool programs, etc. to address again, the lack of individualized attention from their parents.
Your real agenda of course is seperate the child from their parents. Then you can instill whatever values, etc. you desire. I know I'll declare it "unconsciounable" when you advocate a tax for an afterschool "youth brigade."
Nick
That's the biggest bunch of dishonest bullshit I've ever heard. You should just admit that you don't believe in any additional welfare, not that advocates of the "latte tax" have a "superiority complex" that "exploits the poor" while imposing "cultural imperialism."
Let's repeat those accusations:
Supporters of the latte tax:
- Superiority Complex
- Exploit the Poor
- Cultural Imperialism
- "Real Goal" is Child Separation
The pseudo-psych evaluation was an especially nice touch.Originally posted by BR
Their day care shouldn't be subsidized. They should have thought of that choice before they went through with having the kid.
They may have been well enough off when they had a kid.
You can say "their day care shouldn't be subsidized" as much as you like, but that doesn't make it so. Should grade school, jr. high and high school education not be subsidized either?
Originally posted by BR
It just makes it that much easier. It's one less thing these idiot teenage single mothers have to worry about when deciding not to do the right thing and send the kid off through adoption.
Right. You are entitled to an education. Not fvcking daycare. Furthermore, these poor kids get better equipment, supplies, and books in school because of programs like Title I. Rich kids get to go to nice private schools or have all the money in the world for tutors. Poor kids get the best materials because if the schools they attend stop spending the money every year, whether they need it or not, it dries up. Meanwhile the middle class, as usual, get left behind.
Last time I checked, the poor were underrepresented in higher education and went to the worst-funded high-schools. Make no mistake, the poor get left behind..in droves.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Last time I checked, the poor were underrepresented in higher education and went to the worst-funded high-schools. Make no mistake, the poor get left behind..in droves.
That's because of misallocation of funds. The money is there. Believe me. I've seen it in person.
Originally posted by bunge
They may have been well enough off when they had a kid.
You can say "their day care shouldn't be subsidized" as much as you like, but that doesn't make it so. Should grade school, jr. high and high school education not be subsidized either?
Everyone has a right to an education. Everyone doesn't have a right to babysitting.
Originally posted by BR
Everyone doesn't have a right to babysitting.
Ah, but 'babysitting' is so much more than just that.
Originally posted by Chinney
It would take me too long to point out what is wrong with your vile post. However, I do wonder what you advocate for single parents. Do you support welfare for them so that they can stay with their children? I doubt it.
Perhaps instead I could interest you in a regime of punishment for the custodial parent for having had a child and then ending up as a single parent. Or perhaps the children could be killed and eaten, reducing expenses for everyone and providing a source of cheap protein. Call it my 'modest proposal'.
What do I advocate for single parents? How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement.
As for supporting welfare so they can stay with their children? Why would I do that?
How about a little initiative instead of governmetn intervention? How about the nice government provide a bulletin board where the single women can sign up to watch EACH OTHERS kids so they can all go off to work.
I'm not going to feel bad for them. Having a child is a choice. They made it. Having it with someone too irresponsible to marry, assist, etc. just makes it a worse choice.
Nick
This country has to get its priorities straight.
This country used to be about potential and opportunities.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That's the biggest bunch of dishonest bullshit I've ever heard. You should just admit that you don't believe in any additional welfare, not that advocates of the "latte tax" have a "superiority complex" that "exploits the poor" while imposing "cultural imperialism."
Let's repeat those accusations:
Supporters of the latte tax:Superiority Complex
Exploit the Poor
Cultural Imperialism
"Real Goal" is Child Separation
The pseudo-psych evaluation was an especially nice touch.
Oh good job. It's the for the children and you're unconsciousable routine. Followed by "no everything you said is bullshit" defense.
Good reasoning you're showing lately Shawn. No wonder you keep changing your handle.
I note that you have not addressed a single point I raised except for by dismissing them as "bullshit." I'm not worried though because this is becoming a trend with you. I'll look
Argumentum ad nauseam
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it.
Superiority complex - You don't say day care is better than a parent and thus we should provide it. You say it is right because you are conscionable and those against it are unconscionable.
Exploit the poor - If you don't enough working poor what do you do? You convince them to ignore their kids by shoving them into day care and now you have even more $8 an hour workers. Make sure to send them easy credit as well.
Cultural imperialism is right on. Latin attitudes are not always the same as U.S. attitudes. They still have more children per family than the average American family and the mothers are still more likely to stay home. If they choose to change it themselves that is one issue, but you having the government provide a service is different. Other positionss you can take, medical care, education, etc. can at least be argued to improve on a person. Unless you want to claim day care improves on a mom, then it has different rationals. I'm sure you have a lot more experience with hispanics up in Pennsylvania than I do in Southern California but I'll risk that.
As for the real goal being child seperation. What else could it be? I already see these children more than their working parents see them. It is sad but true. You want to compound the problem by moving them to day care which starts the trend earlier in life. Moves it into hours before and after school, and allows that seperation to continue during vacation hours as well.
Also you show your hypocriticalness. In another thread you argue that fast food restaurants are liable for their customers eating habits. Who do you think eats out more, a family with one working parent or two? I mention this because I also noted that cafeteria food is no better than fast food and some kids eat it plus fast food for dinner. Of course that is the nature of institutionalizing things that shouldnt' be.
Address what I type, don't dismiss and repeat.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
IF this country put even half of the money, research and effort we put into the military... into education, the whole conversation would be moot.
This country has to get its priorities straight.
This country used to be about potential and opportunities.
Why do you intentionally confuse federal and state priorities?
Gee my state spends 40% of the budget on education and doesn't have a standing military. Oh gee most states are that way. Oh gee the federal government isn't that way.
Platitudes...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you show your hypocriticalness. In another thread you argue that fast food restaurants are liable for their customers eating habits. Who do you think eats out more, a family with one working parent or two? I mention this because I also noted that cafeteria food is no better than fast food and some kids eat it plus fast food for dinner. Of course that is the nature of institutionalizing things that shouldnt' be.
Address what I type, don't dismiss and repeat.
Nick
*Ahem*....I think you meant "hypocrisy."
And I'm free to disagree with the teacher, Mr. Nick.
You'll just have to send me to detention.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
*Ahem*....I think you meant "hypocrisy."
And I'm free to disagree with the teacher, Mr. Nick.
You'll just have to send me to detention.
You're right. That's what I get for typing before breakfast. (mumbles damn East Coasters, three hours ahead)
As for detention..hell no. You get Saturday school.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Ah, but 'babysitting' is so much more than just that.
Not really, it's just babysitting.
Originally posted by Argento
Not really, it's just babysitting.
Babysitting is just babysitting. What we're discussing isn't just babysitting though.