House passed strip search bill...

[Zanchief]

Those who are against search and seizures at schools will also be the loudest about the failings of the government and the school system as a whole when something happens.

I am all for keeping schools safe even insofar as strip searching if warranted (In extreme situations and only if the parent signs a waiver to allow such) with the inference that any such activity will be overseen by Law Enforcement who should be present prior to it happening. I can see the outraged parents and/or students when a 14-18 year old girl gets strip searched. Prime grounds for a lawsuit right there (The bad man touched me type of claims).

I am speaking as a father with 2 children. I'd rather them be safe. If that means searching their bags,clothing etc I'm for it.

Sith, if they are going to go so far as to have the parents give consent and have a Law Enforcement officer present, why can't they just have the proper authorities perform the strip search?

It just doesn't seem logical to me to have teachers doing this kind of thing.

[Gargamellow]

I don't blame anyone for my kids' mistakes but myself because I raised mine basically alone. Actually, my kids are pretty damn cool. They are all kind, generous, funny, and intelligent with good manners as well.

But I do blame society for not allowing more parents to be the primary caregivers of their children. And I never said daycares or teachers are bad. I did say, however, that the children are raising each other. Darcler, you stated that you are a caregiver at the daycare. Well, that is great. But you also said there is a difference between caring for children and raising them, and you are right. Children should be cared for by the ones raising them. That is my whole point.

Also, I agree with chief. If they are going to search my kids, they had better have an officer present.

[Narrock]

Mindia you dont beleive people have the right to any sort of privacy whatsoever do you?

I bet he is for warrantless wiretaps and survellance too

Of course I am. You should be too unless you have something to hide.

[Naethyn]

lol

[Evermore]

Mindia you dont beleive people have the right to any sort of privacy whatsoever do you?

I bet he is for warrantless wiretaps and survellance too

Of course I am. You should be too unless you have something to hide.

so you are ok with someone who you dont know for no apparent reason, listening in on your private conversations and maybe even planting survellance devices in your home? Are you really this fucked up? No i have nothing to hide but i am against giving the govenment this much power. We have way too much government interference as it is. Why dont you just move to North Korea?

[Narrock]

Mindia you dont beleive people have the right to any sort of privacy whatsoever do you?

I bet he is for warrantless wiretaps and survellance too

Of course I am. You should be too unless you have something to hide.

so you are ok with someone who you dont know for no apparent reason, listening in on your private conversations and maybe even planting survellance devices in your home? Are you really this fucked up? No i have nothing to hide but i am against giving the govenment this much power. We have way too much government interference as it is. Why dont you just move to North Korea?

lol In other words, you just admitted that you don't know how it works.

[Evermore]

Mindia you dont beleive people have the right to any sort of privacy whatsoever do you?

I bet he is for warrantless wiretaps and survellance too

Of course I am. You should be too unless you have something to hide.

so you are ok with someone who you dont know for no apparent reason, listening in on your private conversations and maybe even planting survellance devices in your home? Are you really this fucked up? No i have nothing to hide but i am against giving the govenment this much power. We have way too much government interference as it is. Why dont you just move to North Korea?

lol In other words, you just admitted that you don't know how it works.

Man you are fucked up

[Narrock]

Let me get this straight... you're willing to give up national security because you're afraid the government might listen to your bullshit for 10 seconds?

And you're calling me fucked up?

[Ginzburgh]

The foundation of any relationship is trust. If the government doesn't trust its own people, that relationship like any will degrade. Maybe it will make us safer in the short term but in the long term, the masses will become bitter. The goal of any democratic government should be to maintain a balance between the happiness and the well being of its people. If a government is willing to sacrifice the people’s happiness for their safety, there will be nothing left to keep safe.

[Evermore]

yea get it straight I am calling you fucked up because you are completely fucking warped. Getting a warrant in accordance with the law will NOT compramse "national security". It hasnt so far has it? If you get your head out of Bush's asscrack long enough you might actually notice this.

[Evermore]

The foundation of any relationship is trust. If the government doesn't trust its own people, that relationship like any will degrade. Maybe it will make us safer in the short term but in the long term, the masses will become bitter. The goal of any democratic government should be to maintain a balance between the happiness and the well being of its people. If a government is willing to sacrifice the people’s happiness for their safety, there will be nothing left to keep safe.

Listen to the wisdom of the Ginz!

[Narrock]

yea get it straight I am calling you fucked up because you are completely fucking warped. Getting a warrant in accordance with the law will NOT compramse "national security". It hasnt so far has it? If you get your head out of Bush's asscrack long enough you might actually notice this.

[Arlos]

The argument of "Well, you shouldn't worry about the government having unfettered powers to watch over you if you have nothing to hide" is a specious one at best.

For one, it gives the government WAY too much power. The American Revolution happened because of a government with too much power, and not even 1700s England had that kind of unfettered power. Thus, I would argue quite strongly that such a status would be COMPLETELY counter to the very ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Two, the Founding Fathers made very certain to preserve civil liberties into the fabric of this nation. Largely it was Jefferson driving the effort, with his Bill of Rights, but there are numerous other protections within the document itself. You would cavalierly ignore the very document that defines us as a nation? If you wish to make changes to remove those liberties, you are free to attempt to do so, but you MUST do so via the process of Constitutional Amendment, not because the government at whim decides that it needs more power and the citizens less rights.

Three, it would institute a very real "reign by fear" status within this country, not that we aren't trending towards that already, much to my dismay. The problem is, what is one day OK may the next be considered to be against the state. The words of a German protestant pastor from the late 1930s in Germany resonate as true today on this as they did then: "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me".

You have been very vocal in your "security above all else" rhetoric. But the very words of one of our founders contradicts your stance. Listen to Benjamin Franklin's famous quote of, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." So, by the very rights the Founding Fathers fought for, you have the right to your belief, but since it so contradicts the precepts for which they fought, bled and died in order to found this nation, such a position as yours is clearly Un-American.

-Arlos

[Gargamellow]

<3 Evermore

[Eziekial]

[quote="arlos"]I am against voucher schools, for a primary reason, because they equate to a rebate to those who are already rich enough to send their kids to private schools anyway. As private institutions, they will be able to exclude enrollment to whoever they so choose. The best ones will still cost money on top of what the vouchers cover.

Current private schools will just declare themselves to be exclusive voucher schools, and not one person who couldn't go there anyway would go there afterwards, it would just amount to a rebate to the rich, who don't exactly need the money.

Meanwhile, the public school system would be gutted, as every dollar that went to a voucher school would come out of its budget, and they already don't have enough money.

Besides which, as I said, there will be no accounting for standards at such private schools. They could teach anything and everything on top of whatever limited required core that're required. Sorry, but I have no interest in my tax dollars going to fund the KKK academy or some christian school that is teaching creationism.

Yes, there are some reforms needed in the public school system, but if you really want to make a change, work with it; join the PTA and/or get yourself elected to the school board. Don't blow up the entire system.

-Arlos[/quote]

So it's only about the money then?

[Gidan]

I guess you could say it’s about money. People who can already afford it would get a discount. People who couldn't afford it still won’t be able to benefit from it and will still be sent to public schools that will now have even less funding and be worse then they already are. On a side note, the whole, they can teach what they want argument does hold water. Your tax $$ will be used for these schools regardless of what they teach. Do you want your tax $$ to pay for a school raising young Nazi’s?

[Eziekial]

My essay rebuttal was just erased... so cliff notes:
What caused this debate? A bill from washington. Are parents going to lobby Congress for the change? how? Can they take their kid and their money to another school in current system? Would they be able to under a voucher system?
As for your arguements against it's weak because: Not enough private space for all kids. Most public schools at 100% cap so we'd see small shifts within the public schools. Shit schools with less students easier to identify and correct (easy logistics) while good schools can only take so many or manage another site. Competition = better product.
It is about the money. I don't want MY money raising young nazi's unless they are mine. I prefer MY money going to MY kids but this is a move toward that and I'm for it.