gadgetlady

Homeschooling is currently a state issue and should remain that way. But I'm confident if a Democrat-controlled Congress, Senate, and Presidency could outlaw it, they would. It is a huge threat to what they believe in.

Of course they can't. Neither will they find the supposed "right to privacy" in their either. Yet that doesn't stop them from lying and saying a mother has a "Constitutional right" to kill her children.

I'm not embarrassed at all. When she was nominated, I told my husband, "It's a good day to be a woman in America." You may not like her politics, but that doesn't mean she's a bitch, a bimbo, worthless, incompetent, or any other of the personal attacks you've put forth.

She's not strong, successful, or powerful? She's useless and a bimbo because only liberals can be feminists and only people who agree with you are valuable?

How could I be more clear. WHY is abortion a Constitutional right? I can tell you why gun ownership is a right; I can point to the Second Amendment. I can tell you why free speech is a right; I can point to the First Amendment. Can you tell me WHERE In the Constitution on ON WHAT GROUNDS you base a supposed Constitutional "right" to abortion?

Hilarious. The Constitution promises us a lot of things. Abortion is not one of them. I'm still waiting to hear where you've managed to locate it in the Constitution. I won't hold my breath.

I'd love to get some kind of funding for homeschooling; sadly, we get nothing. We spend A LOT of money (and invest A LOT of time) doing it, and it's well worth it to see the rewards in our beautiful children. Nothing can compare to one-on-one education.

Homeschooling is a wonderful blessing, both academically and socially. I can't imagine shoving my children out the door every morning and not knowing what's going on in their lives, much less not being their best friend. I love teaching them and I love seeing them develop a love of learning. I love it when they ask me questions all day long, when they try to expand their minds, when they reject illogical arguments that they hear others using on tv and the news, and when they speak intelligently. I wouldn't change it for anything.

Oh, goodness, no! I didn't mean to imply that at all! We cannot ever be perfect parents and shouldn't stress about every decision we make -- especially if it is out of our control.

I was, too. I was shocked, and every time someone reminds me of it I think I must have imagined the whole thing, because it is utterly incomprehensible.

Forigive me for not expanding my comparison further (and for being gone all this time to make you wonder what I meant :w00t:). I didn't at all think you were equating Obama with Christ. As I understand it, what you were saying is that Jesus believed in forgiveness and grace, and that that was a wonderful thing. I agreed. But to compare Jesus' position towards the woman about to be stoned (a position of forgiveness and grace) to Obama's position towards Ayres is inappropriate, because 1) Obama is not Ayres' savior, 2) Jesus wasn't running for political office, and 3) Obama's desire to be the elected political leader of the free world doesn't even remotely equate to Jesus' position as an unelected, non-political, Savior. Does that make what I said a little clearer? I understand that you might not agree, but I hope I've been able to at least clarify why I said it.

I have two girls, ages 11 and 8, grades 6 and 3, although they are far ahead in many subjects and have no problem having intelligent conversations with adults on a variety of subjects. We are currently using AOP's SOS (Switched on Schoolhouse). Prior to 3rd grade (when SOS starts) we used Abeka.

Thanks, Wheetsin. I had a hard time putting my finger on my discomfort. This post did it for me.

Amen, absolutely. We would be lost without it. But Obama is not Messiah. I trust Jesus and I believe His goals were and are different than Obama's.

The children who are being neglected and abused currently weren't aborted. Abortion doesn't cure neglect and abuse! You can't predict when a mother is pregnant whether she will neglect and/or abuse her children.

You go from "it's good to still see you fighting for what you believe in" and "I disagree with your beleifs [sic] but I commend your commitment to them" to "Your arrogance and hate creates a blemish on what is a beautiful world" and, then speaking directly of me, "in truth I think I know where evil lurks." I think people can draw their own conclusions.

Wait, are you saying anyone who attacks Obama is a racist, but it's OK for you to call Palin a "bitch" and suggest her husband should be executed?

I have many concerns, but here are my top ones: taking a country that's already financially on the ropes and increasing taxes on everyone (and I do believe he will do this, despite what he says), and further taxing small businesses, is a recipe for disaster. Great Depression, part II, here we come. I am very, very concerned about the overall goal that he has of redistributing the wealth; the last thing we need right now is socialism. I am concerned, as a homeschooling parent, about his goals in the education system -- and I do fear that, given the power, he would attempt to outlaw homeschooling. I am concerned that his plan to socialize health care will destroy our medical system. I am horrified by his votes in the Illinois Senate to deny lifesaving medical care to babies who are born after botched abortions, despite his lying to the American public to try to offer an "excuse" for this action. I'm concerned about his indicating he would sign FOCA, codifying abortion-on-demand through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason, and his goal of providing this at taxpayer expense. I'm concerned about the Supreme Court justices he will nominate. I'm concerned about his wholesale lack of understanding about foreign affairs, his willingness to meet with terrorists, and his ignorance about how to handle foreign conflict. On more than one occasion, when asked how he would deal with terrorist states, he has indicated that he would talk to them and try to reason with them. When one of his advisers was asked about the Russian intrusion into Georgia and how he would handle that, the knee-jerk response was something along the lines of "Obama wouldn't have let it get to that point; he would have negotiated with them before they invaded" -- as if foreign countries are going to run their invasions by him and follow his instruction. There are many, many more things I'm worried about -- the above is just a sample -- but does that help you understand my concerns?

Well, if we're going to go Biblical, 1 Cor 15:33: Bad company corrupts good character. Jesus wasn't nominating the woman for a position of leader of the free world. He also didn't launch his "campaign" in her brothel. I agree with you on that one! But, again, Falwell didn't cause the hurricane or wish he had done more to further its destruction.

I would. I'd have a problem if someone launched his political career or had numerous ties both socially and professionally to an unrepentant abortion-clinic bomber, an unrepentant KKK member, or an unrepentant terrorist bomber.

Really? If someone used to be a member of the KKK, NEVER denounced their actions, SAID recently that he wished they had gone further, still held radical and troubling positions, but had somehow managed to effect a position at a major university, you wouldn't doubt their motives? You wouldn't question whether they were still a radical and had just managed to weasel their way around the system, navigate the system, manipulate the system, etc.? I don't know. We are all very practiced at hiding the things we don't want others to see. I believe very strongly in redemption, forgiveness, and giving people second chances, but when the person who committed the crimes doesn't denounce them but rather praises them and whose only regret is that he didn't do more, I have to question his current motives and state-of-mind -- regardless of what his current job is.

I think what upset him/her wasn't the existence of a sub-forum, but the less-than-respectful explanation of the existence of that sub-forum.

My husband and I have dear friends who are emergency foster parents. They have 3 grown (one still in hs) daughters and they're now taking infants into their home. The first baby they got was a crack baby with a train-wreck set of natural parents. They've had this baby in their house for about 1 1/2 years now (other babies have come and gone due to their unique situations), and they now want to adopt her (their goal at the beginning was not to become adoptive parents, but rather just provide foster care_. The problem is, her parents, despite not being able to clean up their lives, despite not being able to get a job or have a home that passes muster for the state, despite not taking any steps to regularly visit their daughter, despite all of the other obvious problems that they have, won't give up rights to her. Our friends, who are now completely head-over-heels in love with this baby, are terrified that she will be taken away from them and given back to either the father or the mother (who are no longer together) and put back into a horrible familial situation. The problems that these babies face are multi-faceted. The solutions are as well. To say that people are unwilling to adopt foster children is a broad-stroke answer that doesn't look at the fine-brush problems. There are a lot of changes that need to be made, including changes to the foster care system and the adoption system. We have huge social issues all over the nation and the world. But none of these needed changes and horrible social issues warrants the wholesale murder of people in an effort to solve them (that's what Hitler tried). The solution to our problems shouldn't be to kill the innocent victims of the situations. We don't go around killing the elderly, the disabled, the underpriveleged, the downtrodden, and so forth -- similarly we shouldn't just kill the unborn because we think they might have an undesirable future. I am ALL for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. I believe very strongly in birth control and believe women who never want to have children shouldn't be discriminated against when they want to be sterilized (as several on this board have had happen to them). But once the baby is created, I don't believe in killing him or her because we're not happy with their being alive.

Would you feel the same way if McCain had launched his political career from the home of someone who had bombed an abortion clinic 30 years ago, and said 7 years ago that he wished he had gone further? Or would you be OK if he had political and financial connections to someone who used to be a member of the KKK but wasn't any longer (and not only never denounced what he did, but said he wished he had done more)?

For those of you who believe left-wingers are never hateful, hurtful, or inappropriate: Halloween display aims for 'shock value' | stargazette.com | Star-Gazette