Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Indeed. I'd love to know why progressives have such an issue with home schooling?

Anonymous wrote:

Obama likes home schooling? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? I think you don't understand what a progressive is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Indeed. I'd love to know why progressives have such an issue with home schooling?

Who says progressives do? The point is that homeschooling is something that progressives do. Because they don't want their children indoctrinated into being corporate consumer widgets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Indeed. I'd love to know why progressives have such an issue with home schooling?

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

And, lots of them are schoolteachers.

Yes, some of them are left-wing hippies. So now there are two things that bring together right-wing conservative Christians and left-wing hippies -- opposition to the Common Core, and homeschooling. So sweet!

Anonymous wrote:

Do you assume I am a religious Christian?

They assume that anyone against CC is right wing conservative. They are seriously wrong.

Do you assume I am a religious Christian?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

Welcome back, Everything The Federal Government Has Done Since Marbury v. Madison Is Unconstitutional poster!

Am I correct, or not? That's what you should concern yourself with

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are right, PP, and it's even bigger than that. Remember, the Feds nowadays take a lot of the states money through taxation and other fees, which cripples the states re: public education and other public needs within the state. So when the money is tied to things like adopting CC, a lot of the states have no choice but to accept it, if they want to fund their schools at all. This is, of course, by design. How better for the feds to circumvent the Constitution, which was designed to limit federal power for these very reasons.

Welcome back, Everything The Federal Government Has Done Since Marbury v. Madison Is Unconstitutional poster!

Am I correct, or not? That's what you should concern yourself with

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.

Anonymous wrote:
nice theory. In practice, it is stealing money from one state and giving LOTS of it to others. Federal overreach on programs such as Race to the Top.

Anonymous wrote:

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.

nice theory. In practice, it is stealing money from one state and giving LOTS of it to others. Federal overreach on programs such as Race to the Top.

Anonymous wrote:
NP

You are not correct.

NP

You are not correct.

1) The national government doesn't take money from the states. They don't tax the states. They tax individual citizens who owe a duty of support to the federal government. You and every other American is a citizen of your state and a citizen of the USA. American sovereignty is split between the state governments and the national government. You have a duty to support both your state government and your national government with your taxes. If you don't like that, organize a Constitutional convention and we'll vote on devolution.

2) The states don't have to accept national standards and national money. They can raise their own income tax. They can raise their own property taxes. They can raise sales tax. They can hold a lottery. They can refuse to fund elementary education at all. They can hand out vouchers and tell the parents to figure out.

3) The practice of the national government offering incentives for states complying with a national policy has been held Constitutional over and over and over again by the Courts. Insisting that it's not Constitutional when it is a matter of settled law makes you look like an idiot. Legal analysis isn't like your weekly Bible study. You don't get to put your own spin on it by studying a small piece of the text and coming up with a meaning that makes sense to you because of your other beliefs and your political leanings. The Constitution has to be read in context with thousands of pages of case law and you have to follow the case law. There is no Fundamentalist legal analysis that is acceptable. It doesn't work that way.