"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don"
wrote:


Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children
meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking
over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you
decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education
you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost
varies depending on the public schools in question and your own
priorities.
Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.
Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR
parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate
from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a
check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to
become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you
children are being raised to believe they are only in it for
themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?
Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've
seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is
not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective
needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality.

I have no problem at all contracting with YOU and others to gain what I
need.
What I have a problem with is people like YOU that believe there should be
an expensive middle man in DC.
Yes, that is socialism.
All for one, one for all.