Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My Opponent Homeschools Her Children
Rardin for Kansas ^ | 11/1/2010 | Democrat State Rep. Gene Rardin

Posted on 11/05/2010 10:03:31 AM PDT by Qbert

If you are not aware of this, you should be, before you vote.  I taught in SM Schools and support funding for a strong public education system. I demonstrated my belief by attending SM Schools as did both of my children.

Amanda Grosserode does not understand the importance of our public schools and has demonstrated that lack of understanding by withdrawing her own children from public schools in favor of home schooling.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: education; homeschool; homeschooling; ks; publicschools
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last
To: IrishCatholic

I’m a firm believer in homeschooling, but I’d never go so far as to say it’s tantamount to murder. Soothie crapped all over a good point of view by taking it too far.


41 posted on 11/05/2010 10:48:18 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
You couldn't be more right about that.

If you have ever seen a grade-school textbook lately, I can assure you, it would nauseate you.

42 posted on 11/05/2010 10:48:35 AM PDT by SMARTY ("..discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

Are Oh Eff Ell!!!!!!

I had to watch it twice, with tears of laughter shooting out of my eyes! :)


43 posted on 11/05/2010 10:48:45 AM PDT by MarineBrat (Better dead than red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: riri

All the more reason to not have kids in the first place.

The risk of a gruesome death or worse (soul death) is very very high.


44 posted on 11/05/2010 10:51:34 AM PDT by Soothesayer (“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

Please, ss, do not paint a broad brush on those who use public school. I say this has someone who has used both the public schools and successfully homeschooled.

Those who use the public school system see it first as a legal obligation. As long as they use it and their children thrive in that environment (and some do), they do not see it as a system promoting socialism.

That said, I would not call them monsters. Blind to socialism, yes, monsters, no. It is not intentional.

As far as murdering them, I would disagree greatly. If a parent does their job, and communicates the pitfalls of the leftist agenda to their children, a child will be better for it under any educational environment. It prevents the kids’ minds from being sacrificed to the godless. Murder is a strong word. I have seen homeschooling fail too, because the kids have no idea how to defend what they believe.

Our problem in this country is not education as much as it is parents. The public education system is doling out what the parents allow. Try changing it and you will find out that the problem is blind parents. Not monsters and murderers.

Work today to take the blinders off of a parent.


45 posted on 11/05/2010 10:54:40 AM PDT by del4hope (Sheeeeeeessssmmmmmelllllllttttttiiiiiiiinnnnnnngggggg......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Anyone who has kids and either can’t or won’t home-school/private school is a monster.

Wow, dude, that's much harsher than I normally call it. I usually just say: unless you absolutely cannot afford it, if you send your kids to public school you are not a conservative.

People who choose to send their kids to public schools are still addicted to OPM (other people's money).

46 posted on 11/05/2010 10:58:01 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
I like homeschooling too.
That doesn't even enter into it.
His post was beyond offensive and straight down the toilet to the septic tank of moronic.
By being that insulting and stupid at the same time, he pretty much annihilates his credibility on any other post on any topic he might care to comment on in the future.
47 posted on 11/05/2010 10:58:46 AM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Imagine my sister's surprise when her son, a conservative as conservative gets engineering grad student started dating a left wing California girl who's family took him to their church that gave anti-Bush sermons. At first he was a little uncomfortable with it, then he slowly became a "moderate", next thing I knew he was voting for Barack Obama. This conversion started about 3 years ago, he's now 30.

Some people just don't have the fortitude to be individuals.

48 posted on 11/05/2010 11:00:33 AM PDT by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

Oh my heavens! ROFL! Thank you so much. I got a celebration after all. That is priceless. LOL!


49 posted on 11/05/2010 11:00:42 AM PDT by donna (The fruits of Feminism: Angry fathers, bitter mothers, fat kids and political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Its now pulled but here is the cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IVzphZf4EJYJ:www.rardinforkansas.com/blog%3Fkey%3D2823+http://www.rardinforkansas.com/blog%3Fkey%3D2823&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


50 posted on 11/05/2010 11:01:01 AM PDT by Patrsup (To stubborn to change now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: esoxmagnum; justice14

>The irony of your tagline is astounding.

Allow me to elaborate then.

Let A be the statement “Violating [or non-compliance with] tax laws is criminal.”

The Supreme Court, in the 1798 case “Calder v. Bull” declared that the prohibitions against Ex Post Facto law is applicable ONLY to criminal law.
So, let B(x) be the Statement x is a criminal law; and let C(x) be the statement “x cannot be retroactive [that is, ex post facto].”
The Supreme Court ruling presents us with this property [P1]: B(x) -> C(x)

Now we know that the Tax-laws have been retroactively changed {under Bill Clinton was one, but I cannot find the reference} so they CANNOT be criminal.
So, C( “tax-law” ) is FALSE.
Because C(”Tax-Law”) is false it CANNOT be the case that B(”tax-law”) is true; that would violate the implication in P1.

Now that we know that tax-law CANNOT be criminal, because it can and is retroactively changed, why are violations of it pursued in criminal court?


Or if you want something a little less formal; consider this:
My state, New Mexico has the following in its State Constitution:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but
nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No
municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incidentof the right to keep
and bear arms.

There is a state statute which says:
NMSA 30-7-2.1. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises.
A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises consists of carrying a deadly weapon on school premises except by:
—(1) a peace officer;
—(2) school security personnel;
—(3) a student, instructor or other school-authorized personnel engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or state-authorized hunter safety training instruction;
—(4) a person conducting or participating in a school-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a deadly weapon; or
—(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on school premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.

B. As used in this section, “school premises” means:
—(1) the buildings and grounds, including playgrounds, playing fields and parking areas and any school bus of any public elementary, secondary, junior high or high school in or on which school or school-related activities are being operated under the supervision of a local school board; or
—(2) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not public school property, in or on which public school-related and sanctioned activities are being performed.

C. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

Now then, is violation of NMSA 30-7-2.1 a violation of the law? [Especially since the cited section of the State Constitution prohibits any law from “abridg[ing] the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense”.]
Please answer that and give the reasoning behind your answer.


51 posted on 11/05/2010 11:03:10 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

“Amanda Grosserode does not understand the importance of our public schools and has demonstrated that lack of understanding by withdrawing her own children from public schools in favor of home schooling.”

I must not understand the importance of public schools either since I home schooled and my daughter enter the local university at 13.


52 posted on 11/05/2010 11:05:49 AM PDT by pops88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrsup

Thanks Patrsup.


53 posted on 11/05/2010 11:06:01 AM PDT by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

“Anyone who has kids and either can’t or won’t home-school/private school is a monster. For all intents and purposes they are guilty of murdering their own children.
May they experience nothing but sorrow and agony forever.”

You are mentally ill.


54 posted on 11/05/2010 11:06:05 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Anyone who has kids and either can’t or won’t home-school/private school is a monster. For all intents and purposes they are guilty of murdering their own children.

May they experience nothing but sorrow and agony forever.

Wow! I’m sure every doctor your family visits, every other tradesman or professional you hire, the police that patrol your neighborhood, and the local firemen, were all homeschooled. /s

There is nothing wrong with homeschooling except for the (comparative few) zealots who post things like this from time to time. In fact, if you were looking for the modern day equivalent of the judgmental self-righteous Pharisees that Jesus condemned so often, those zealots would fit the bill.

55 posted on 11/05/2010 11:06:20 AM PDT by fungoking (Tis a blessing to live in the Ozarks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“BECAUSE the public schools do not teach any thinking skill, but a mindless obedience to someone claiming a position of authority.”

Private and homeschools can fail in the same area. There is no magic bullet.

I home school (obviously) but I think your hyperbole is way over the top. To equate public school with murder is astounding to those who have been affected by murder. Murder is way up the scale.

There are the occasional parents who simply can not home or private school. Perhaps single, abandoned, in severe medical situations - and education is compulsory in this nation.

In these cases I personally believe the church and/or charities should step in. But you can’t force it.

I favor the dismantling of public education and an end to compulsory education (other than a requirement that citizens be offered, perhaps at a library, basic literacy and math skills, in order to ensure a proper defense). But I would not equate public schooling your kids to murdering them.


56 posted on 11/05/2010 11:07:19 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: justice14

No, not a crime be punished if commited; but a crime being punished AFTER the sentence thereof has been served; as in the case of “felons.”
The more proper term would be “ex-felons” because they have served their sentence.


57 posted on 11/05/2010 11:07:19 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

Now, don’t go making the same mistake Soothie made.


58 posted on 11/05/2010 11:07:58 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

I didn’t.


59 posted on 11/05/2010 11:08:38 AM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Imho, they may be “ex-cons” but they cannot be “ex-felons”.


60 posted on 11/05/2010 11:10:40 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson