http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health;_ylt=Alk7AXp8RI0Fqefj2oLuzFnVJRIF

I see his approval rating dropping to 16%.

Let the Bush burning begin.

Yay! Yet another thing we can blame him for! :D

Compassionate conservative my ass.



Cat

Those poor 25 year old kids.

Those poor 25 year old kids.


Actually 18 and under.

my hero!

http://images.politico.com/global/070926_edtoon9-26_600.jpg

my hero!

http://images.politico.com/global/070926_edtoon9-26_600.jpg


Harsh, yet true.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_children_s_health;_ylt=Alk7AXp8RI0Fqefj2oLuzFnVJRIF

I see his approval rating dropping to 16%.

Let the Bush burning begin.


What goes around comes around! Bush wanted to have the Immigrants that came from Mexico become citizens, but it was vetoed! There can be a chance to have this not be vetoed if 2/3 of the House and Senate approves!

I voted for Bush twice...but there are a few who are extremely kicking themselves because of this. I'm kicking myself because of Bob Taft.

Oh...here's some ways you want Bush.


Will I get in trouble for this?

Mod edit to remove too many emoticons

He claims it would lead to socialized system.  Without SCHIP federal funding that just may happen.  States are now starting to look at universal health care at their level.  PA has three varied universal health care bills floating around their house and senate.  The veto only adds fire to those who support universal health care.

Actually 18 and under.


http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/story/299485.html

SCHIP was created to cover kids whose parents were doing too well to qualify for Medicaid but not well enough to buy their own insurance. Now, Congress is seeking to extend coverage to families earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level (just over $60,000 a year for a family of four) and to "children" up to 25 years old.

In addition, some families earning as much as $83,000 a year would qualify for SCHIP if the Senate bill becomes law.

To pay for it all: a regressive new tax on tobacco.

He claims it would lead to socialized system.  Without SCHIP federal funding that just may happen.  States are now starting to look at universal health care at their level.  PA has three varied universal health care bills floating around their house and senate.  The veto only adds fire to those who support universal health care.
every time a right-winger uses the word “socialist,” i immediately get suspicious. this current lot in office is pretty much about privatizing every single function currently provided by government and have taken to referring to any public-sector spending of any kind as “socialist.” from the point of view of real-world politics it’s meaningless but it does quite well at scaring people. but it’s hard to see how expanding health care coverage for children is going to lead america to become some kind of soviet command economy. the idea’s laughable.

http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/story/299485.html

SCHIP was created to cover kids whose parents were doing too well to qualify for Medicaid but not well enough to buy their own insurance. Now, Congress is seeking to extend coverage to families earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level (just over $60,000 a year for a family of four) and to "children" up to 25 years old.

In addition, some families earning as much as $83,000 a year would qualify for SCHIP if the Senate bill becomes law.

To pay for it all: a regressive new tax on tobacco.


State law modifies how old.  In PA it's 18.  How many children with the household income of $83,000 to qualify.

As for the tax on tobacco.  I'm going to assume it has an underlining health message.

every time a right-winger uses the word “socialist,” i immediately get suspicious. this current lot in office is pretty much about privatizing every single function currently provided by government and have taken to referring to any public-sector spending of any kind as “socialist.” from the point of view of real-world politics it’s meaningless but it does quite well at scaring people. but it’s hard to see how expanding health care coverage for children is going to lead america to become some kind of soviet command economy. the idea’s laughable.


Did you see that public service announcement Regan did back in the 50's against socialized medicine. (It's on youtube).  I guess you mean that kind of stuff, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AA

What really gets me is that many cry that this is "socialized medicine" and that a lot of kids who DON'T need this will be added, however it seems to me that there are 535 people who make at least $165,200 who receive FREE health care and I hear no one in Washington crying how this is "socialize medicine" or they can afford to pay for it themselves. Of course I'm sure everyone realizes that I am talking about members of Congress. Yeah, it is fine for them to all have everything they need at taxpayers expense but Goddess forbid if that extend that to ordinary citizens, especially those who really do need help. 



Cat

What really gets me is that many cry that this is "socialized medicine" and that a lot of kids who DON'T need this will be added, however it seems to me that there are 535 people who make at least $165,200 who receive FREE health care and I hear no one in Washington crying how this is "socialize medicine" or they can afford to pay for it themselves. Of course I'm sure everyone realizes that I am talking about members of Congress. Yeah, it is fine for them to all have everything they need at taxpayers expense but Goddess forbid if that extend that to ordinary citizens, especially those who really do need help. 



Cat


I think what they don't understand is there is such a thing as a Working Class.  They work, pay taxes and still can't afford insurance.  Coincidentally Medicare and Medicaid can be defined as "socialized medicine".

What really gets me is that many cry that this is "socialized medicine" and that a lot of kids who DON'T need this will be added, however it seems to me that there are 535 people who make at least $165,200 who receive FREE health care and I hear no one in Washington crying how this is "socialize medicine" or they can afford to pay for it themselves. Of course I'm sure everyone realizes that I am talking about members of Congress. Yeah, it is fine for them to all have everything they need at taxpayers expense but Goddess forbid if that extend that to ordinary citizens, especially those who really do need help. 



Cat


Yup.  They health and retirement benefits that they are able to get are phenomenal, which is why in many cases politics is a family affair.

Before everything else, we need to get out of Iraq.  I like the idea behind this bill (except for the tobacco tax thing), but we need to cut spending.  The easiest way to do this is to withdraw from Iraq.  Then, we can talk about promoting better healthcare programs for children and the like.

Before everything else, we need to get out of Iraq.  I like the idea behind this bill (except for the tobacco tax thing), but we need to cut spending.  The easiest way to do this is to withdraw from Iraq.  Then, we can talk about promoting better healthcare programs for children and the like.



Some Repubs think that this bill is a waste of time/$$$ because the kids this bill will help will be going over to Iraq before long-and as Scrooge said, "Decrease the surplus population."  ::) ::) ::)



Cat

LOL...  good points.  As cynical as I am, I do believe we'll be out of Iraq in the next 2 or 3 years at the very latest.

The SCHIP program?  More like the SCHIT program!
::)

When they were reading Dickens novels to Bush in school, he rooted for the bad guys!


What did we expect? Thes guys want to dismantle the public school system!


Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Nebraska, is trying to rally a veto override.  Frikkin' RINO.  Let's get Limboulter to "swift boat" him!
>:(

The SCHIP program?  More like the SCHIT program!
::)

When they were reading Dickens novels to Bush in school, he rooted for the bad guys!


What did we expect? Thes guys want to dismantle the public school system!


Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Nebraska, is trying to rally a veto override.  Frikkin' RINO.  Let's get Limboulter to "swift boat" him!
>:(
when i run this through babelfish, which language should i put in the "translate from" box?

*ducks* :-\\

The SCHIP program?  More like the SCHIT program!
::)

When they were reading Dickens novels to Bush in school, he rooted for the bad guys!


What did we expect? Thes guys want to dismantle the public school system!


Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Nebraska, is trying to rally a veto override.  Frikkin' RINO.  Let's get Limboulter to "swift boat" him!
>:(


You say that like privatizing education is a bad thing...  Grassley seems like a decent enough guy.  I'm just glad this bill has shown us that some amount of bipartisanship still exists in Congress.

You say that like privatizing education is a bad thing... 

Yes.

Hear me now and believe me later.
::)

Yes.

Hear me now and believe me later.
::)
charter schools are here to pump up all you girlie men... with education!

I don't suppose anyone has handy a copy of the bill he vetoed?

Ant

I don't suppose anyone has handy a copy of the bill he vetoed?

Ant



I believe this is the bill.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:12:./temp/~c110JATFJM::



Cat

I believe this is the bill.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:12:./temp/~c110JATFJM::



Cat


The reason why he put the veto towards it is because It should be for the ones that don't receive $83 per year.

This is why Communism isn't a bad thing if done properly.

The reason why he put the veto towards it is because It should be for the ones that don't receive $83 per year.

This is why Communism isn't a bad thing if done properly.
turns out the bill DOESN'T do that, it only covers families who make up to 60K. that was an excuse on bush's part.

Yes.

Hear me now and believe me later.
::)


Couldn't do any worse than the government schools are doing now.

Couldn't do any worse than the government schools are doing now.
actually, the post-occupation education system in iraq is a pretty good example of what you get when you combine school vouchers with unfunded mandates for education reform. like the idea of your kids standing in a classroom lined with raw sewage, trying to scrawl out lessons in the sand with a stick?

I believe this is the bill.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:12:./temp/~c110JATFJM::



Cat


It doesn't display for me, but thanks all the same.

Ant

It doesn't display for me, but thanks all the same.

Ant


Try here


http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html

Plug in "schip" and it should come up.



Cat

actually, the post-occupation education system in iraq is a pretty good example of what you get when you combine school vouchers with unfunded mandates for education reform. like the idea of your kids standing in a classroom lined with raw sewage, trying to scrawl out lessons in the sand with a stick?


Ouch...  very good point...  But still, wouldn't you say America (in most areas) is in far better shape than Iraq?  I realize many areas would need to go through a government-funded transition to feasibly move toward complete privatization of education, but I don't see it being any worse than the current system in many areas.

Ouch...  very good point...  But still, wouldn't you say America (in most areas) is in far better shape than Iraq?  I realize many areas would need to go through a government-funded transition to feasibly move toward complete privatization of education, but I don't see it being any worse than the current system in many areas.
i have a lot of problems with it. actually, i don't have any kids so i dont actually have a dog in this hunt but if i did have kids... i mean the charter system is probably great for the people who can afford it but us regular joes would probably end up stuck sending our kids to bargain-basement wal-mart-y schools, don't you think? that's the problem, if you don't distribute the burden more evenly (so that, for instance, childless people like me pay into the system but don't get anything out of it except the satisfaction of living in a healthy society...) then the people who can't afford the really high-priced, high-quality education are gonna be stuck with something substandard or worse. it strikes me as being a lot like the health care debate.

True, but my argument is that healthcare has been thoroughly ruined by the greed of corporations, while education has been thoroughly ruined by the incompetence of governments.

I think medicine is ironically better off in the hands of the government, and education is better off as a commodity sold in an open market.  Quite frankly, more of our education system needs to be specific to getting a job and less focused on "liberal arts."  We need to be teaching most of our children trades.  Let the rich kids take the Ivory Tower route -- they're the ones who can afford to spend some time without a job.

turns out the bill DOESN'T do that, it only covers families who make up to 60K. that was an excuse on bush's part.
And, a family of 4 could be stretched pretty tight at $62K ($83K still wouldn't be the lap of luxury) depending on where they are located.  In someplace like Alabama where the cost of living is really low, they're living large, but in NYC or LA, they'd be lucky to get a rat-infested apartment in the projects ::)

Which makes me happy I live in Illinois, where our governor has already passed legislation that covers low-income kids who don't qualify for medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.

Couldn't do any worse than the government schools are doing now.

Uh, they can teach children that God made man out of a stick and a ball of mud and woman out of the stick-ball-mud-man's rib and that snakes talked and people used to live 800 years or some sh*t!

They are not "government schools."  They are "public schools."  I will not stand idly by and listen to christofascist flapdoodle. 

The voucher con:

If you don't like your crumbling public school, we'll hasten its demise by giving you a $2K voucher for a private school of your choice. 

But I only make $20K a year...and $2K is not even half the annual tuition of the cheapest private school in the city, which is a Catholic school anyway, and we're Baptist!

OK then how about you and your poor-ass friends pool the money and form a charter school?

Huh?  We all gotta go out and work for a buck during the day, and besides, we didn't get to go to college because we had to support children when we were 18!

Well...maybe you people should've made better choices in life, honey.  This is a free country so you're free to blow it.  The era of Big Government is over!
::)

The voucher con:

If you don't like your crumbling public school, we'll hasten its demise by giving you a $2K voucher for a private school of your choice. 

But I only make $20K a year...and $2K is not even half the annual tuition of the cheapest private school in the city, which is a Catholic school anyway, and we're Baptist!

OK then how about you and your poor-ass friends pool the money and form a charter school?





Yeah, they make it seem like they are going to allow vouchers so that kids from the 'burbs can to to Phillips Andover.  They forget the other 30 grand they may need for the rest of the tuition, the transportation or live in fees, books, uniforms, sports, etc etc.  All that if and only if there is a private school that will(big word here) accept the application to the school.  Hey in some cases the application fee would eat up that 2K.  Then there is the question of what happens to my special needs child and all his buddies.  You want to see a limited pool of choices take a look at that.  None of the private schools are currently obligated to offer any inclusive offerings to children with developmental disabilities.

These are all valid points, but the real sticking point to the education issue is that the only way the public system in most areas can improve is for more money to be spent on them.  This means an increase in taxes, and obviously, most people are against that....

Yeah, they make it seem like they are going to allow vouchers so that kids from the 'burbs can to to Phillips Andover.  They forget the other 30 grand they may need for the rest of the tuition, the transportation or live in fees, books, uniforms, sports, etc etc.  All that if and only if there is a private school that will(big word here) accept the application to the school.  Hey in some cases the application fee would eat up that 2K.  Then there is the question of what happens to my special needs child and all his buddies.  You want to see a limited pool of choices take a look at that.  None of the private schools are currently obligated to offer any inclusive offerings to children with developmental disabilities.

And that's what makes private schools seem so much more efficient...they can pick and choose.  Public schools cannot.  It's always easier if your wealthy or upper middle class.  My uncle has Aspbergers Syndrome with some OCD.  Of course, in 1952 they had no such diagnoses.  Back then Paul was just, you know, funny in the head.  Fortunately, my grandparents had enough money to send him to Buxton Academy where they accepted problem children if you could pay the fees.  Paul would not have been able to graduate from the public schools, but he did graduate from Buxton.  He even started going to Marlborough College in Vermont, but his mental deficits made it impossible to complete a BA; even if he finished the degree he would not have been able to hold down a job. 

If Paul had been from a working class family in Waltham rather than an upper middle class family in Belmont, he might have been institutionalized.  That's what they still did in the middle 20th century.  He would have ended up in some barbarous state intitution like the Fernald School in Waverly.  I shudder to think what would have happened to him there.

Public education needs serious reform to strengthen its rigor and standards.  The NCLB attitude is to punish public schools that don't make the grade by cutting their budgets...thus deepening their problems.  It makes no sense unless they're trying to kill public education; especially public education in poor areas where pupils come to school with more stress and domestic problems. 

I myself was "special needs" in math.  I spent years in "resource room" and never learned it.  I'm still terrible with numbers.  I don't even know how much is a bunch of dimes!
::)

It's been a couple of decades, but I didn't learn much in HS.  There were some exceptions, such as "20th Century American Literature" with Reynolds because he was a crusty old Yankee who actually made you work for the grade!

And that's what makes private schools seem so much more efficient...they can pick and choose.  Public schools cannot.  It's always easier if your wealthy or upper middle class.  My uncle has Aspbergers Syndrome with some OCD.  Of course, in 1952 they had no such diagnoses.  Back then Paul was just, you know, funny in the head.  Fortunately, my grandparents had enough money to send him to Buxton Academy where they accepted problem children if you could pay the fees.  Paul would not have been able to graduate from the public schools, but he did graduate from Buxton.  He even started going to Marlborough College in Vermont, but his mental deficits made it impossible to complete a BA; even if he finished the degree he would not have been able to hold down a job. 

If Paul had been from a working class family in Waltham rather than an upper middle class family in Belmont, he might have been institutionalized.  That's what they still did in the middle 20th century.  He would have ended up in some barbarous state intitution like the Fernald School in Waverly.  I shudder to think what would have happened to him there.

Public education needs serious reform to strengthen its rigor and standards.  The NCLB attitude is to punish public schools that don't make the grade by cutting their budgets...thus deepening their problems.  It makes no sense unless they're trying to kill public education; especially public education in poor areas where pupils come to school with more stress and domestic problems. 

I myself was "special needs" in math.  I spent years in "resource room" and never learned it.  I'm still terrible with numbers.  I don't even know how much is a bunch of dimes!
::)

It's been a couple of decades, but I didn't learn much in HS.  There were some exceptions, such as "20th Century American Literature" with Reynolds because he was a crusty old Yankee who actually made you work for the grade!


I have autism (I think I mentioned it earlier.) But if I was living in 1950's America, I may have a problem getting into a school. I may not even get a job, I might just be a hippie telling the pigs to give me a chance to learn. That's why the ADA was invented. We're now in a process to find out how Health Care should be handled. Clinton brought it up in 1993, but look at ADA it started in 1972 and it took 20 years to come in full view. It may be a few years when we can find a middle ground, so we may expect more veotes from anyone.

Will I get in trouble for this?



Only for the use of way too many emoticons! ;)

As a general rule, we normally would like the use of them kept to around 5 per post.
Of course, not everyone abides by it - so we edit when we find them. 8)

http://cagle.com/working/071009/beeler.gif

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/31863/2003179931856052785_rs.jpg

http://cagle.com/working/071009/beeler.gif

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/31863/2003179931856052785_rs.jpg


Conservative crackpot cartoons are so passee, much like Ann Culter. ;)  Need I also remind you it was a bipartisan bill.

i sorta like the one about smoking for your kids' health.

i sorta like the one about smoking for your kids' health.


I have a problem with the second one.

I have a problem with the second one.
well, it perpetuates a falsehood with that 80K figure. as for the “bush hates kids” book, that’s totally unfair: bush doesn’t hate kids! he’s far too busy not caring about black people to hate kids. :)

well, it perpetuates a falsehood with that 80K figure. as for the “bush hates kids” book, that’s totally unfair: bush doesn’t hate kids! he’s far too busy not caring about black people to hate kids. :)


I suppose Bush does have his priorities.

Now they're picking on a 12-year-old handicapped boy. What is the right-wing's major malfunction?
8-P

Isn't it funny how our Government likes to spend Billions on foreign aid to countries in Africa to primarily assist in providing health care for the citizens of said countries.. yet back here at home a bill ensuring that a vast number of children in our own country would be provided with health care is vetoed.

It's a head scratcher for sure.

Protecting the youth of America, one Somali at a time.

Isn't it funny how our Government likes to spend Billions on foreign aid to countries in Africa to primarily assist in providing health care for the citizens of said countries.. yet back here at home a bill ensuring that a vast number of children in our own country would be provided with health care is vetoed.

It's a head scratcher for sure.

Protecting the youth of America, one Somali at a time.

That's because American kdis hang around and complain, while African kids get massacred in civil wars, die of malaria, die of AIDS, and getten eaten by lions and/or crocodiles.  Graeme Frost of Baltimore can say, "Please, sir, may I have some more?," but little Aluku Mubutu cannot because his HIV- ridden corpse is slowly disintegrating in Nile Crocodile guts. So that's why it's easier for the government to talk about health care for African children than health care for American children.
:o

That's because American kdis hang around and complain, while African kids get massacred in civil wars, die of malaria, die of AIDS, and getten eaten by lions and/or crocodiles.  Graeme Frost of Baltimore can say, "Please, sir, may I have some more?," but little Aluku Mubutu cannot because his HIV- ridden corpse is slowly disintegrating in Nile Crocodile guts. So that's why it's easier for the government to talk about health care for African children than health care for American children.
:o


Screw Aluku Mubutu, he's not gonna be the one working on my car in 20 years.

Seriously, what about getting our own house in order first.
I realize this is a topic for a different thread but throwing all the money in the world at some of these destitute African nations wont help a thing, famine and poverty doesn't always go hand in hand with a shortage of food but more often than not a poor government and until these governments are whittled away by the will of the people, all the aid in the world wont keep Aluku Mubutu out of the Crocodile's stomach.

you might actually be surprised and heartened to learn that the US gives less than is commonly believed in foreign aid. the wingnuts go round and round on it a lot -- the right, which tends to want less aid, says the US gives more aid in raw dollars than any other country, which i think is technically true, and the left, which tends to want more aid, makes the point that, as a proportion of GDP or a proportion of total government spending, the US actually gives a lot less than other countries.

they were having an interview with juan williams, a rather fiery center-left commentator, and asked him if there was anything he liked about bush and much to my surprise, juan sticks up for his aid packages to africa. evidently he's relatively generous in historical terms where that's concerned.

Now they're picking on a 12-year-old handicapped boy. What is the right-wing's major malfunction?
8-P


The parents sent that boy and his sibling to a 20,000 dollars-a-year (for one, not both) private school.  Not really the best example of a poor family in need of taxpayer-funded healthcare.

The parents sent that boy and his sibling to a 20,000 dollars-a-year (for one, not both) private school.  Not really the best example of a poor family in need of taxpayer-funded healthcare.


They are on scholarship.  Good for the parents for instilling in them the value of a good education, even if it doesn't much look like they will live long enough to reap the benefits.

They are on scholarship.  Good for the parents for instilling in them the value of a good education, even if it doesn't much look like they will live long enough to reap the benefits.


It's 40K well spent, in't?  With the two Frost kids going to private school it takes money away from the godless commie America-bashing public schools where the curriculum consists of rap lyrics analysis and putting rubbers on cucumbers!

Jeez, nothing makes you guys happy!

...or is it the part about the government spending money on medical care for kids instead of a wall on the Mexican border that you hate?
:D

The Republican party ceased being about smaller government ever since Reagan entered office.

That being said, it would be better for us to improve border security before socializing medicine.  That way, you have less illegals taking advantage of it once it is later implemented.

The problem with the situation behind this bill is that the taxes it uses as funding hurt the working class, but the President vetoed it for the wrong reasons.  Bush is too obsessed with Iraq to focus his thoughts more domestically.

And now...  it looks like Iran might be the next target, so the military industrial complex doesn't want more funding removed from its expansive coffers.  We essentially have an administration that cares more about Iraqi kids than American ones.

The Republican party ceased being about smaller government ever since Reagan entered office.

That being said, it would be better for us to improve border security before socializing medicine.  That way, you have less illegals taking advantage of it once it is later implemented.




Hmmmm.  So you say it is better that American kids don't get health care until we can be sure children of questionable allegiance don't get health care, too?  Sounds  a bit backward.  The whole thing about denying health care to anyone bothers me.  Having been to England doesn't refuse health care to anyone makes me wonder why the richest country in the world finds such handwringing about offering health care to any child.

Hmmmm.  So you say it is better that American kids don't get health care until we can be sure children of questionable allegiance don't get health care, too?  Sounds  a bit backward.  The whole thing about denying health care to anyone bothers me.  Having been to England doesn't refuse health care to anyone makes me wonder why the richest country in the world finds such handwringing about offering health care to any child.
*standing ovation*

Hmmmm.  So you say it is better that American kids don't get health care until we can be sure children of questionable allegiance don't get health care, too?  Sounds  a bit backward.  The whole thing about denying health care to anyone bothers me.


Why should the U.S. government have to pay for the healthcare of people who aren't U.S. citizens?  Illegal immigrants do not have a right to even be in this country, much less sucking up taxpayer-funded benefits.

richest country in the world finds such handwringing about offering health care to any child.

Well then, let's just pay for Mexico's childrens' healthcare as well.  The U.S. government can write the government of Mexico a big check for how ever many billions it would cost each year.  If that works, we can expand to other nations.  Who says U.S. taxpayer dollars should benefit Americans?

It's 40K well spent, in't?  With the two Frost kids going to private school it takes money away from the godless commie America-bashing public schools where the curriculum consists of rap lyrics analysis and putting rubbers on cucumbers!

Jeez, nothing makes you guys happy!


Anything that gets any kid out of a government school a good thing.  But this family was not poor.  That's the point.

Putting condoms on cucumbers and/or bananas actually happens in some of these government schools.  That's not just some myth or lie being put out there by the vast right-wing conspiracy.  You also have sex surveys to first graders in one California school district and homosexual indoctrination in Massachusetts public schools.

If you have the money to send the most cherished thing in your life to a private school of any kind, and you still send them to the government for an education, it's pretty much child abuse, in my personal opinion.

Anything that gets any kid out of a government school a good thing.  But this family was not poor.  That's the point.

Putting condoms on cucumbers and/or bananas actually happens in some of these government schools.  That's not just some myth or lie being put out there by the vast right-wing conspiracy.  You also have sex surveys to first graders in one California school district and homosexual indoctrination in Massachusetts public schools.

If you have the money to send the most cherished thing in your life to a private school of any kind, and you still send them to the government for an education, it's pretty much child abuse, in my personal opinion.
we have homosexual indoctrination in massachusetts public schools! this is not a myth or lie! you heard it here first.

we have homosexual indoctrination in massachusetts public schools! this is not a myth or lie! you heard it here first.


Massachusetts: Gay Topics and Schools
The New York Times
02/24/2007

A federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by parents who wanted to keep their young children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. The judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court, said the courts had decided in other cases that parents’ rights to exercise their religious beliefs were not violated when their children were exposed to contrary ideas in school. Schools are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens,” Judge Wolf said. The parents who filed the lawsuit, Tonia and David Parker of Lexington, sued after their 5-year-old son brought home a book from kindergarten that depicted a gay family. Another Lexington couple joined the lawsuit after a second-grade teacher read a class a fairy tale about two princes falling in love.

Source

Clip from It's Elementary, a 78-minute video that is shown in Massachusetts public schools.

--I could find more, but it'd take too much time.  And I suspect everyone here has already made up their minds fully on this issue.

that's not "advocating" gay lifestyle. that's saying it exists. those books sound fine; it's real-life dude. gay people exist. it happens.

note the judge threw the case out.

that's not "advocating" gay lifestyle. that's saying it exists. those books sound fine; it's real-life dude. gay people exist. it happens.

note the judge threw the case out.


Dude, keep your voice down. The gays will come and turn you gay!!

I don't know about all the gay stuff.  I can see why some parents might be angry about that.

However...  fighting the inclusion of sex education is absolutely ridiculous.  "Abstinence-only" programs have proven to be a collossal failure.

While I lean in favor of privatizing education, I still don't get the Religious Right's view on education.  It's like they're hopelessly naive.  They're almost as bad as the Islamists.

Hmmmm.  So you say it is better that American kids don't get health care until we can be sure children of questionable allegiance don't get health care, too?  Sounds  a bit backward.  The whole thing about denying health care to anyone bothers me.  Having been to England doesn't refuse health care to anyone makes me wonder why the richest country in the world finds such handwringing about offering health care to any child.


I hear ya.  "Sicko" was a very compelling movie and Michael Moore's best, by far.  So, I definitely agree that universal healthcare is a necessary move to make, eventually.

However, the problem is that we actually don't turn people away in the long run.  People get turned away at first from getting treatment that saves them trouble later on, and we don't render them services until it gets so bad that they end up in the emergency room.  Then, they end up getting a major procedure done which they can't pay for, so then the hospital absorbs the cost and passes it to those of us who do pay our bills.  This happens all the time with illegals.

So, in effect, we already have a semi-socialized system that drives up our costs steadily.  This is why we need a universal healthcare system, but we need border security first.

It's not backward, but it is coldly practical.

Why should the U.S. government have to pay for the healthcare of people who aren't U.S. citizens?  Illegal immigrants do not have a right to even be in this country, much less sucking up taxpayer-funded benefits.

Bingo...  We actually agree on this one.

Well then, let's just pay for Mexico's childrens' healthcare as well.  The U.S. government can write the government of Mexico a big check for how ever many billions is would cost each year.  If that works, we can expand to other nations.  Who says U.S. taxpayer dollars should benefit Americans?

Agreed, but that's the same argument I use for withdrawing from Iraq.  Both parties have been guilty of putting other nations' interests ahead of our own.  We need to stop doing that...  IMMEDIATELY.

Why should the U.S. government have to pay for the healthcare of people who aren't U.S. citizens?  Illegal immigrants do not have a right to even be in this country, much less sucking up taxpayer-funded benefits.

Well then, let's just pay for Mexico's childrens' healthcare as well.  The U.S. government can write the government of Mexico a big check for how ever many billions is would cost each year.  If that works, we can expand to other nations.  Who says U.S. taxpayer dollars should benefit Americans?


If you're an American and you go to France or Great Britain and become sick those Countries will cover your Medical bill.  Coincidentally American's are constantly sneaking over the boarder to take advantage of the Canadian system.  Why should those Countries have to pay for us Americans.  Yeah, I know because we're Americans.

If you're an American and you go to France or Great Britain and become sick those Countries will cover your Medical bill.  Coincidentally American's are constantly sneaking over the boarder to take advantage of the Canadian system.  Why should those Countries have to pay for us Americans.  Yeah, I know because we're Americans.


The logic you're using here is... irrational to say the last.

Yes, it's true, whilst out of the country most healthcare services will take care of tourists.. often sending them a bill afterwards. Generally you will find.. that if for instance, a.. I don't know, Turkish tourist broke his leg in Dallas, I dare say he'd be able to get it fixed.

An interesting note, my Mother visited me over here one Christmas and became ill, requiring a tip to the urgent care clinic because she didn't have a doctor here. They treated her and never charged a penny and this wasn't the city hospital, at the time I was living in Aurora just outside of Chicago, very middle class, very white bred, very nice.. no cost.

If you're an American and you go to France or Great Britain and become sick those Countries will cover your Medical bill.  Coincidentally American's are constantly sneaking over the boarder to take advantage of the Canadian system.  Why should those Countries have to pay for us Americans.  Yeah, I know because we're Americans.

Eh...  good point.  I'll put it this way, if we were flooding into Canada at the same rate that Mexicans are here, then I can assure you that Canadians wouldn't be doing that much longer for us.

Then again, if we actually did that to Canada, our illegals there would almost equal their native population....

As for Europe, they already have expansive healthcare systems that can handle a few extra freeloaders.  They pay so much in taxes that it's no wonder they can afford to do this.

While I agree that France's system would make for a good model to use for our own healthcare system, we'd have to set very different ground rules for its operation.  We'd also have to secure the Mexican border beforehand.

Eh...  good point.  I'll put it this way, if we were flooding into Canada at the same rate that Mexicans are here, then I can assure you that Canadians wouldn't be doing that much longer for us.

Then again, if we actually did that to Canada, our illegals there would almost equal their native population....

As for Europe, they already have expansive healthcare systems that can handle a few extra freeloaders.  They pay so much in taxes that it's no wonder they can afford to do this.

While I agree that France's system would make for a good model to use for our own healthcare system, we'd have to set very different ground rules for its operation.  We'd also have to secure the Mexican border beforehand.



The question here isn't even about healthcare though, it's about how you secure the border? A shoot to kill policy is about as good a deterrent as I can think of.. and all the same, I'd rather not have such a policy.

The question here isn't even about healthcare though, it's about how you secure the border? A shoot to kill policy is about as good a deterrent as I can think of.. and all the same, I'd rather not have such a policy.


A friend of mine works for Boeing, and they are currently working on an invisible fence system.  Motion detecting sensors that span the entirety of the southern border will allow troops stationed on the border to find and apprehend illegals and then deport them.  This is vastly cheaper than a physical wall while still much more effective.

The logic you're using here is... irrational to say the last.

Yes, it's true, whilst out of the country most healthcare services will take care of tourists.. often sending them a bill afterwards. Generally you will find.. that if for instance, a.. I don't know, Turkish tourist broke his leg in Dallas, I dare say he'd be able to get it fixed.

An interesting note, my Mother visited me over here one Christmas and became ill, requiring a tip to the urgent care clinic because she didn't have a doctor here. They treated her and never charged a penny and this wasn't the city hospital, at the time I was living in Aurora just outside of Chicago, very middle class, very white bred, very nice.. no cost.


Wasn't talking about tourist, I was talking about ex-pats.

I know the Turkish tourist couldn't get medical care here.  Why do you think some tourist take out extra insurance before coming to America.  American's hospitals have a tendency to overcharge tourist.  Some doctors and hospitals will not charge from time to time.  I know of a Podiatrist who will care without being paid.

Wasn't talking about tourist, I was talking about ex-pats.

I know the Turkish tourist couldn't get medical care here.  Why do you think some tourist take out extra insurance before coming to America.  American's hospitals have a tendency to overcharge tourist.  Some doctors and hospitals will not charge from time to time.  I know of a Podiatrist who will care without being paid.


Well those ex-pats would oftentimes be citizens of the country.

A friend of mine works for Boeing, and they are currently working on an invisible fence system.  Motion detecting sensors that span the entirety of the southern border will allow troops stationed on the border to find and apprehend illegals and then deport them.  This is vastly cheaper than a physical wall while still much more effective.


That'd be an intelligent system, but would it work effectively? The number of troops stationed on the border would have to be enormous.

Well those ex-pats would oftentimes be citizens of the country.


Forget about the fact that they came for the health care system to begin with.  This is why Canada wants to make rules that a person must BECOME a citizen before they can take advantage of the system.

that's not "advocating" gay lifestyle. that's saying it exists. those books sound fine; it's real-life dude. gay people exist. it happens.

note the judge threw the case out.


Of course it's real life.  There are also a lot of real life things you don't shove into the heads of second graders.  You want to teach this stuff in middle school or high school, fine.  But at that age it's just absurd.

Judges also do a lot of stupid things.  The case was appealed.

Coincidentally American's are constantly sneaking over the boarder to take advantage of the Canadian system.


Same thing goes on the other way.

There are Canadians who come into America for healthcare.  But those are usually the ones with a lot of money who don't like being on a long waiting list for a hip replacement.

Same thing goes on the other way.

There are Canadians who come into America for healthcare.  But those are usually the ones with a lot of money who don't like being on a long waiting list for a hip replacement.


I wonder if that constitutes trade agreement? :-\\

Of course it's real life.  There are also a lot of real life things you don't shove into the heads of second graders.  You want to teach this stuff in middle school or high school, fine.  But at that age it's just absurd.

Judges also do a lot of stupid things.  The case was appealed.
well, it's not like it's hot XXX action or anything. it's two princes in love, just like princes and princesses fall in love. there's nothing explicit about it.

as far as the bananas and cucumbers and so forth, i really am adamant about educating students in condom use -- cuz if you can't figure out how to put one of those things on on your own, you REALLY shouldn't be breeding! 8-P

it's two princes in love, just like princes and princesses fall in love.

And there is absolutely no problem with this?

Anything that gets any kid out of a government school a good thing.  But this family was not poor.  That's the point.

Putting condoms on cucumbers and/or bananas actually happens in some of these government schools.  That's not just some myth or lie being put out there by the vast right-wing conspiracy.  You also have sex surveys to first graders in one California school district and homosexual indoctrination in Massachusetts public schools.

If you have the money to send the most cherished thing in your life to a private school of any kind, and you still send them to the government for an education, it's pretty much child abuse, in my personal opinion.

So much for sarcasm...

Back to the old drawing board for me!
:-\\


well, it's not like it's hot XXX action or anything. it's two princes in love, just like princes and princesses fall in love. there's nothing explicit about it.


Turn off that Spin Doctors record right now!

I think gender identity issues can wait a while past kindergarten. 

Condom education?  Teenagers have sex.  Nothing seems to stop them.  Never has, never will.  So, if we can stop little Johnny from knocking up little Suzie in the 9th grade, that's a good thing!
::)


Hmmmm.  So you say it is better that American kids don't get health care until we can be sure children of questionable allegiance don't get health care, too?  Sounds  a bit backward.  The whole thing about denying health care to anyone bothers me.  Having been to England doesn't refuse health care to anyone makes me wonder why the richest country in the world finds such handwringing about offering health care to any child.

Karma +1

My attempts to explain the American healthcare system in England were greeted with a confused: "Wot?"

So much for sarcasm...

Back to the old drawing board for me!
:-\\
Turn off that Spin Doctors record right now!

I think gender identity issues can wait a while past kindergarten. 

Condom education?  Teenagers have sex.  Nothing seems to stop them.  Never has, never will.  So, if we can stop little Johnny from knocking up little Suzie in the 9th grade, that's a good thing!
::)
Karma +1

My attempts to explain the American healthcare system in England were greeted with a confused: "Wot?"



Max, might I bring up the fact that quite a few children are being brought up in same-sex parent households.  Massachusetts has Gay Marriage and quite a few more have (or are thinking about Civil Unions).  It can not be ignored, the question is how and when do you deal with that.

As for the American healthcare system, no one has said there isn't a problem.  It's just that no one can agree on how to fix it.

That'd be an intelligent system, but would it work effectively? The number of troops stationed on the border would have to be enormous.

Not really...  at least when compared with the number we've committed to Iraq.  If we withdraw all of our forces from Iraq and put them on our border instead, we'd have more than enough manpower.

Forget about the fact that they came for the health care system to begin with.  This is why Canada wants to make rules that a person must BECOME a citizen before they can take advantage of the system.


More power to them.  If I were Canadian, I would support this move myself.

And there is absolutely no problem with this?


I don't have a problem with this, but I realize that I don't exactly fit the typical Christian mold.  Given the predominantly Christian viewpoint in this country, however, I can see how many others would have a problem.

I guess it's probably better to just postpone the issue to middle or high school.

Max, might I bring up the fact that quite a few children are being brought up in same-sex parent households.  Massachusetts has Gay Marriage and quite a few more have (or are thinking about Civil Unions).  It can not be ignored, the question is how and when do you deal with that.

As for the American healthcare system, no one has said there isn't a problem.  It's just that no one can agree on how to fix it.

I suppose if you "normalize" same-sex parents to other children starting in kindergarten, you might spare the children of same-sex parent households from getting tormented later on.  You wouldn't have to make "sex" part of the curriculum.  If my five-year-old asked the question, I'd explain it without hesitation.  I would because I know actual gay people...not just degrading media stereotypes about them.

Thing is, there are many millions more who would call this "indoctrination" and "social engineering" and would protest it.  The majority of these are basically decent folks who just disagree with you and me.  

Unfortunately, these same "decent" people would be ignorant as well, but I guess that's par for the course.

You can't legislate morality...  or enlightenment....

I suppose if you "normalize" same-sex parents to other children starting in kindergarten, you might spare the children of same-sex parent households from getting tormented later on.  You wouldn't have to make "sex" part of the curriculum.  If my five-year-old asked the question, I'd explain it without hesitation.  I would because I know actual gay people...not just degrading media stereotypes about them.

Thing is, there are many millions more who would call this "indoctrination" and "social engineering" and would protest it.  The majority of these are basically decent folks who just disagree with you and me. 


How do you address something that is becoming commonplace?  That is the issue.  I agree for most Kindergarden and grade school is too young. 

Just a thought that came to me. Feel free to smack me if it doesn't make sense. I'm tired and stuff. :D

Why even make an issue out of being (OMG) Gay? In my eyes, we're all the same, and if there is a same sex couple that has a child, so be it.

Sometimes I think we set ourselves up for more trouble when we make BIG EVENTS out of stuff that is supposedly different.

How do you address something that is becoming commonplace?  That is the issue.


Commonplace?  Only 4% of the American population is gay, lesbian or bisexual.  It's not some 50-50 split or even an 80-20 one nationwide.  Gays are in a very, very small minority.  Groups with larger demographics get less sway in government schools.