GTAVercetti

Don't be obtuse, unless you're being funny, then by all means continue..... But if you're serious; It's a decision based on solely religious criteria. If you want to call it 'anti-religious' that's fine, but only semantics. Edit: Have a great weekend. I'll start the margaritas and tequila shots. This two message thing has got to stop.

Frankly, I think the SC should have commented that the lower court was upholding a legal position that establishes an endorsement based on religion - which would be blatantly wrong if it was a national position. What I don't know is whether the SC has the duty to do that or if it is out of their jurisdiction. The lower court would not be "establishing" anything. From Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution: "No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." They would be upholding what is already in their constitution. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

some kids can't afford to do that I like to think of education funding as being for the kids, not being for the schools. Your statement containing "at all" is a religious position and the government should not support any religious position with funding or law. You can't have it only one way. My not wanting goverment money given to religions is religious? That doesn't make any sense. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

The upper court is right. The decision must not involve religion in any way (for or against). Florida is in violation of the higher law in this case by making a decision which specifically 'endorses' a position on religion. Just as wrong as if they put a clause in the state constitution to say public education funds could ONLY be used in a catholic school. No, what I am saying is that the upper court did NOT comment on the religious aspect. They only made an opinion on the public money for private school aspect. So does that make the lower courts opinion on the religious part null? It should be noted that because there is a section in the Florida constitution on no government support of relgious bodies, a court COULD comment that a law is in violation of that...as the lower court did. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

No one is saying you cannot send your kid to a "church" school. Ya just gotta pay for it yourself. They are not taking your choice away there at all. I don't think schools run by religion should be supported AT ALL by public money. Just my opinion. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Actually, it was not about religion in the supreme court. The lower court agreed on the religion issue, but the supreme court only made mention of using public money outside of the public school system. They avoided religion. I don't know enough about law to know how significant that is. Maybe someone can answer. If the lower court said it violated the separation portion of the Constitution, but the upper court does not mention it (does not disagree; simply leaves it out) does that say the lower court's opinion is null? Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Every religious school that I have seen has had manadatory religious study of that religion (not a comparitve study). The Florida constitution also states that that no public money shall go to religious organizations. Like it or not, a school run by a religion, quality or not, is a religious organization. They may teach math and history, but they also have mandatory prayer and religious study. In fact, the Catholic school where I went to church(same grounds) has a sign in the yard boasting that they save tax payers million. If vouchers were used there, that would not really be true. In anycase, like I said, the constitution has to change first. It seems they did not bother to read it when they pushed this through. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

That is such an outrageous statement, I am glad it seems by your last sentence you are being somewhat facetious. It is unconstitutional. That is all. That is why it was struck down. Public money, under the Florida constitution, is to go to public schools. If they want vouchers, the constitution has to change first. And since many were using the vouchers for religious schools, public money was also going to religion. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

FWIW it's the most important part of the Constitution aside from Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! ya know what? I am totally retarded today. I was looking at the wrong state in the first part (article X is education for delaware) and then I went and looked at article I, sec 3 for the United States instead of Florida. I think I need to lay down. But I cannot, I must memorize every state constitution by 4:30! Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Huh? Article 1, section 3 is about the senate. Was that a joke? Cause if not, ya lost me.

Well start thinking of ways to make it better or change the constitution, cause like brierebecca said, its in there: Article X. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Most voucher programs actually save the taxpayers money. I can't speak to this particular program in Florida, specifically, though. It's interesting that the NEA acts more as a union, basically working to save public school teachers jobs, but individual teachers are often more concerned with what's good for the kids than what's good for their jobs. Most of the people actually doing the teaching aren't in it for the money. NOT DOING IT FOR THE MONEY?!?!?!?!? Who are these fucking people? Teachers is craaaaaaaazy! Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Ihave no desire to go pay money to see it. That shit just does not interest me. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Actually you are right. I wasn't thinking about it like that. Everyone should get vouchers that can be used for public or private schools. There, I have changed my mind.

It's not clear to me that I got much of *any* kind of education between grades 5 and 12, and I would bet that home schooling can do a far better job of teaching the material taught in grades 1 - 4. Walt And that is your personal experience. I had mine and I also know that I would have not gotten into college without public school. And I would not have the good job I possess now. And do you think every parent has the time to homeschool? It is just not a realistic expectation. Not only must the parent learn to be a good teacher but many parent work full time. Yes, the argument could be made, "then they should not have kids." But then who would have the kids? Only the rich, who can afford maids or nannies or not working? That idea simply will not stop people from having kids. And like I said, they will have kids who have no chance to ever further themselves because their parents made poor mistakes. And most likely, they will go onto to make the same mistakes if they make it out alive. Public school has ALOT of problems, but it is something we need to at least give kids a chance no matter if their parents are morons or not. (I also agree though that people should not be FORCED to go to school. But then, GED IS an option) Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

The problem with this idea is that if we remove the tax that is used to fund public school, it will not stop idiots from having children. Instead, they will keep going and their children will have NO chance to improve their lives and will then become idiots themselves. And the saga continues. Furthermore, if there was no public school, I am not even sure MY parents could have afforded to send me to school. My parents are not rich. They handle money well but I don't think they could have afforded to pay for 17 years of school (I included college too). Particularly at the age when people usually have children. I too, do not plan on having children. But I like innovation, art, creativity, new ideas. If our children do not receive a basic education, the alot of what I like will lessen. Basic education may not give them everything, but it gives many drive to be better. I know it did for me. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

While I am not a big fan of the voucher program, your argument is a somewhat extreme. Do you really think that BASIC education should be totally private? I mean, I am pretty liberal when it comes to government interference in our lives, but without taxpayer money for school, I can bet we would see alot less people going to any school. And you would see our country getting even dumber. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Well, that is it. I am going to make one right now instead of the photoshopped one I have been wearing. Photoshopped foil hats are soooooooo passé. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Join me in the gutter. I got a bottle of $5 Vladimir and some FROM concentrate Tang. I guess I have reason to be grateful to John. Can't beat an offer like that. I'm yours, baby. rl Damn, I should have used the tang line along time ago.

Which explains precisely why I cannot understand how the self-called "fuddy duddy" came up with this bizarre explanation for the whipped cream. I know my mind makes regular forays into the gutter, but as I keep saying, this would never have occurred to me. rl Join me in the gutter. I got a bottle of $5 Vladimir and some FROM concentrate Tang. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

That you're promoting the militant homosexual agenda again? Seriously. I feel like I HAVE to be gay now. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

maybe so, but I am still better than you. I RULE. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

then my point #2 applies for "that" individual. I put in point #1 because it is the knee jerk response quite often. And then the refutation isn't against the original speaker, it's just a minimization of all things American. This thread is much more reasonable than the normal stuff. Kudos to the first poster for setting up without the confrontational/defensive mood. I like caramel better than jelly beans. And black licorice I agree. Its good to see that many people with the view that while America DID help, we were only a piece of the total puzzle. Without all the pieces, it probably would have turned out differently. I hate black licorice. BLEH. But carmel jelly beans are delicious. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

If you look over in the thread he was refering to (the double gas price one), you can see the arrogance definitely seems to be coming from the poster and not the reader. At least that is how I see it. Basically is came down to "we saved your ass, show us a little respect." I also agree with your assement and I like jelly beans sometimes. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

It actually says that on the bottle. Too much causes insomnia. Way to much causes the lamp to invite you for tea and crumpets and your washing machine to ask to borrow a cup of sugar. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.