Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Holder on Banning Home Schooling


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#61    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 16 February 2013 - 02:31 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 15 February 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Just Holder saying that is bad enough. It shows his complete disregard for the Liberties that this country was founded on and he should be branded a traitor to the people.

Not really. He's merely stating "the facts" as he sees them. Doesn't mean he agrees with them. For instance, while he might say it wouldn't violate anyone's right, is it not possible that he would still be against banning it?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#62    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:05 PM

You are correct Stella he may never have any intention of ever doing that. But hes said he could. Words are dangerous things. And even more so in the mouths of dangerous politicians.

My point is when a man in his powerful position speaks he dare not speak of how he can violate our Rights.  I cant go around pouring gasoline on fires while the Fire department is trying to put them out. This country is teetering and its men that say things like that has alienated yet another segment to the population.


#63    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,406 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:07 PM

View PostStellar, on 16 February 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Not really. He's merely stating "the facts" as he sees them. Doesn't mean he agrees with them. For instance, while he might say it wouldn't violate anyone's right, is it not possible that he would still be against banning it?
That is possible but in Holder's case I'd guess he'd love to ban it.  Regardless,  the feds don't have that power since the states are in control of education within their borders.  What Holder has said is if liberal states like NY or CA would like to ban homeschooling, the feds wouldn't interfere.

Nice midterms democrats.  As Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#64    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,554 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:29 PM

Holder is a spineless coward. :td:


#65    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:11 PM

I think its very dangerous what you're saying there, AsteroidX. I want my politicians free to speak of facts as they are, whether they agree with them or not. I think its a very dangerous thing to prevent politicians from even mentioning facts, as this would result in politicians being forced to only speak about what people "want" to hear, contributing to all the problems we have with politicians these days.

Hold politicians accountable for their actions and intentions, sure. Don't hold them accountable for presenting facts if they are correct, as soon you'll see no more facts (at least, correct ones) being presented at all.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#66    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:12 PM

View PostStellar, on 16 February 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Not really. He's merely stating "the facts" as he sees them. Doesn't mean he agrees with them. For instance, while he might say it wouldn't violate anyone's right, is it not possible that he would still be against banning it?

   So , we don't know what he personally thinks, OR the legal reasons for the statement. I hate all the mystery with these doods
*  why.... couldn't he just give us a reason for the statement?       bugs me  lol

Edited by lightly, 16 February 2013 - 09:15 PM.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#67    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,518 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:14 PM

View Postlightly, on 16 February 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

   So , we don't know what he personally thinks, OR the legal reasons for the statement. I hate all the mystery with these doods
they can get themselves into serious trouble sometimes when they say what they really think. just look at twitter.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#68    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:20 PM

Quote

I think its very dangerous what you're saying there, AsteroidX. I want my politicians free to speak of facts as they are, whether they agree with them or not. I think its a very dangerous thing to prevent politicians from even mentioning facts, as this would result in politicians being forced to only speak about what people "want" to hear, contributing to all the problems we have with politicians these days.

Hold politicians accountable for their actions and intentions, sure. Don't hold them accountable for presenting facts if they are correct, as soon you'll see no more facts (at least, correct ones) being presented at all.

This isnt the first ridiculously Unconstitutional thing Holder has suggested. Look at whole not the parts. I dont mind saying dangerous things. The Govmnt feels free to threaten the people you can expect the people to threaten the Govmnt back. His the chief attorney in this country. He should be upholding Law not trying to break the Constitution.


#69    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:36 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 16 February 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:


This isnt the first ridiculously Unconstitutional thing Holder has suggested.
Look at whole not the parts. I dont mind saying dangerous things. The Govmnt feels free to threaten the people you can expect the people to threaten the Govmnt back. His the chief attorney in this country. He should be upholding Law not trying to break the Constitution.

See? Thats my issue right there. What exactly did he suggest WRT the home schooling issue being discussed?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#70    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:51 PM

Quote

WRT
? not sure what that means

The right to teach your child as you see fit would fall under several of the articles of the Constitution to be honest...The 1st and 8th being obviously relevant. Our school systems are not up to par with many around the world and forcing students to attend them is a violation of our Liberty.

That he says the Federal Govmnt supports States Rights to do so is Unconstitutional. Yet The Federal Govmnt has a green light to raid MMP's Growers in States that have deemed it legal.

See the contradiction in policy ? Its only ok if it fits his agenda on nationalizing indoctrination of children from the cradle to the grave.


#71    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:41 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 15 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

Never heard of him. Doing my googling bit. We have our own Eric Holders here too.
My Westie tilts his head too.


The reason why I mentioned the Germany bit is because of this:

A federal district court judge granted the Romikes asylum here against the wishes of the Federal government.  The government appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration appeals and won.

I took it that the federal government was not Eric Holders alone.
But my main point is really in the post i made about getting asylum in someone elses country and still insisting on your own schooling within that town you have chosen to settle in.

But the very reason they left Germany was cause they were forcing public schooling for thier children. They came here so they could homeschool. I for one fully support that, so long as the kids education at least meets the standard. For every home schooled kid I have ever seen, that isnt any where near a problem.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#72    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:43 PM

View PostStellar, on 16 February 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Not really. He's merely stating "the facts" as he sees them. Doesn't mean he agrees with them. For instance, while he might say it wouldn't violate anyone's right, is it not possible that he would still be against banning it?

Maybe. Problem is he is wrong. It isnt a matter of opinion. It is a right to home school your kids.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#73    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:18 PM

Quote


Maybe. Problem is he is wrong. It isnt a matter of opinion. It is a right to home school your kids.

Is that in your bill of rights?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#74    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:43 PM

View PostStellar, on 17 February 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

Is that in your bill of rights?

Indirectly, yes. Its also in the Declaration of Independence

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#75    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:51 PM

That would be too specific of an item to be put into the BOR. It is a much more general broad piece of writing. It would IMO fall under the First Amendment. And banning it would possibly be considered cruel and unusual punishment :td:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users