Just For Fun Forum Idea - You Views on What Obama Will Do

[Pen Rua]

Just an idea, seen as President Obama has just taken office.

How about using the Just For Fun Forum to talk about different aspects on what you think Obama will do, or should do, and things like that.

Just and idea. Thought it would be good, seen as the occasion is here.

[iWaddle]

It'll turn into a flame debate, I bet. Not everyone is happy with Obama either. Some people prefer McCain.

[blingstr]

I don't think i would really find that "fun". A thread for that in the general chat would be more appropriate in my opinion.

[Chandru]

I don't know, so many people are unhappy about Obama.

[Poisenman101]

I don't know, so many people are unhappy about Obama.

That just isn't true. You need to read up on his popularity....the country was ready for a change. He won the election didn't he?

[Waitor]

I wasn't thrilled or diappointed with Obama. I wanted Ron Paul.

[walmartshrty]

I wasn't thrilled or diappointed with Obama. I wanted Ron Paul.

Me too. ;[

Obama will... steal money from taxpayers, worsen the economy and look good while doing it. It's like the law of presidents.

[Snathan!]

Maybe it should be in General Chat/Life, because it's not like the other Just For Fun forums.
Anyway, I would think a sticky would be enough.

I don't know, so many people are unhappy about Obama.

Loads of people are gonna be unhappy about any election, because there's always gonna be a lot of people supporting the other candidate.

[Waitor]

Me too. ;[

Obama will... steal money from taxpayers, worsen the economy and look good while doing it. It's like the law of presidents.

Ron Paul? Huzzay. Not that I really follow American politics, but eh...

[Chandru]

That just isn't true. You need to read up on his popularity....the country was ready for a change. He won the election didn't he?

I know, it's going to turn into a flame debate with false claims about the candidates.

I wasn't thrilled or diappointed with Obama. I wanted Ron Paul.

Why?

[Butters]

That just isn't true. You need to read up on his popularity....the country was ready for a change. He won the election didn't he?

Speaking for one of the the millions of people who voted for McCain, that statement is false. The only change I want is a Republican Congress. Haven't seen one of those during the Bush Era. (BTW, Congress is the one who accepts war and stuff.)

[Tom]

Speaking for one of the the millions of people who voted for McCain, that statement is false. The only change I want is a Republican Congress. Haven't seen one of those during the Bush Era. (BTW, Congress is the one who accepts war and stuff.)

Obama entered the Inauguration with a 79% approval rating. Higher then Bush and Clinton when they entered office. So far, Obama is making the right moves, I can only assume it's much higher by now.

[Guardian Ou]

Just an idea, seen as President Obama has just taken office.

How about using the Just For Fun Forum to talk about different aspects on what you think Obama will do, or should do, and things like that.

Just and idea. Thought it would be good, seen as the occasion is here.

Personally, I don't really see the fun in that.

Debating just doesn't seem like fun to me. :rolleyes:

[Aeroviper]

Me too. ;[

Obama will... steal money from taxpayers, worsen the economy and look good while doing it. It's like the law of presidents.

How can you state this as fact?

[JoeyPeng]

I think Obama will come to the forums, make an account, and give us democracy.

[Dannyboy]

This should be made because as we all know politics are really FUN.

[Chandru]

I think Obama will come to the forums, make an account, and give us democracy.

We kind of already have a republic, but no one will believe Obama is on MCCP until the news covers it.

It's interesting how the media covers Obama's personal life. I saw an article about his Cadillac limo.

[walmartshrty]

How can you state this as fact?

From every other presidency I can conclude that his will be very much like every other.

Obama owes his loyalties to those who gave him money during his campaign. That money came from various companies and the like, very little percentage came from poor or average people, because they simply could not afford giving him millions of dollars. Not to mention it's a rare president that doesn't want money, but instead wants the best for the average joe.

To think that the new president will be any different than the ones before is naive and imprudent. Politicians give us new lies and we take joy in those lies, but these lies do not come true, and the people are disappointed. Again and again this happens, and instead of realizing this, people seem to forget the past and go on feasting on lies.

[Biggalo]

I wasn't thrilled or diappointed with Obama. I wanted Ron Paul.

Though, aren't you Canadian?

As for Obama accepting most of his money from big companies, I know that in the primaries that he refused to take money from lobbyists and litterally got millions in donations from "Average Joes".

[Lost One]

Not everyone is happy about Obama. You people know this right?

I am not happy with Obama. On his first day in office he signed TONS of papers that I do not think he should have. He signed a paper that will OUTLAW homeschooling. So, I for one, am unhappy about Obama. Are you sure you want to get into his politics?

[walmartshrty]

Though, aren't you Canadian?

As for Obama accepting most of his money from big companies, I know that in the primaries that he refused to take money from lobbyists and litterally got millions in donations from "Average Joes".

You may say that Obama does not do and he may claim that he doesn't, but he does. Seriously, like every other politician, he takes donations from huge corporations. He may say that he's not taking money from lobbyists, but that doesn't make it true. It's incredibly naive to think you can trust someone you do not even know.

[Rooster22]

In My opinion hes a lying sleaze bag.. :) Here are Some quotes
Earlier
Iran is not a threat..
Later
IRAN IS A GREAT THREAT!

:O You don't believe me? Heres proof :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I&feature=related

[worldking01]

In My opinion hes a lying sleaze bag.. :) Here are Some quotes
Earlier

Later


:O You don't believe me? Heres proof :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I&feature=related

Things change. When he said it at first, Iran may not have been a threat. Then it became a threat. He is not lieing, things have just changed.

[Chandru]

In My opinion hes a lying sleaze bag.. :) Here are Some quotes
Earlier

Later


:O You don't believe me? Heres proof :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I&feature=related

I wouldn't cite that video. Another video from the user says he has radical ties, which means that we shouldn't vote for Obama. Proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3OKJy7iYQ&feature=channel)

[Aeroviper]

From every other presidency I can conclude that his will be very much like every other.

Obama owes his loyalties to those who gave him money during his campaign. That money came from various companies and the like, very little percentage came from poor or average people, because they simply could not afford giving him millions of dollars. Not to mention it's a rare president that doesn't want money, but instead wants the best for the average joe.

To think that the new president will be any different than the ones before is naive and imprudent. Politicians give us new lies and we take joy in those lies, but these lies do not come true, and the people are disappointed. Again and again this happens, and instead of realizing this, people seem to forget the past and go on feasting on lies.

You are stereotyping politicians and being negative. He hasn't been in office for a week yet and you claim to know what he will do and claim to know what he does. I'm not saying Obama is perfect or that big changes will happen. I'm also not saying that he will be different. Nobody can tell so early. Also, if McCain was elected, would your conclusion be different?

[Rooster22]

I wouldn't cite that video. Another video from the user says he has radical ties, which means that we shouldn't vote for Obama. Proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3OKJy7iYQ&feature=channel)

Im not talking about his other videos.... That video showed that Flip-Flopped in LESS then 48 hours :)

[Lost One]

You are stereotyping politicians and being negative. He hasn't been in office for a week yet and you claim to know what he will do and claim to know what he does. I'm not saying Obama is perfect or that big changes will happen. I'm also not saying that he will be different. Nobody can tell so early. Also, if McCain was elected, would your conclusion be different?

Actually... with Obama in office, how can you not be negative?
Obama has changed his mind on things. And I don't remember where, I think on his website, he said he was against abortions, BUT HE IS PRO-CHOICE! That is a double-standard, am I right?
Atleast McCain didn't have double-standards. I woulda rather had Huckabee, honestly.
Obama signed ALOT of papers on his first day that ALOT of people disagree with.

[Rooster22]

Actually... with Obama in office, how can you not be negative?
Obama has changed his mind on things. And I don't remember where, I think on his website, he said he was against abortions, BUT HE IS PRO-CHOICE! That is a double-standard, am I right?
Atleast McCain didn't have double-standards. I woulda rather had Huckabee, honestly.
Obama signed ALOT of papers on his first day that ALOT of people disagree with.

I know right.. I wanted Romney though..

[walmartshrty]

You are stereotyping politicians and being negative. He hasn't been in office for a week yet and you claim to know what he will do and claim to know what he does. I'm not saying Obama is perfect or that big changes will happen. I'm also not saying that he will be different. Nobody can tell so early. Also, if McCain was elected, would your conclusion be different?

Is it wrong to stereotype when there is so much proof in support? Negativity is called be prudent. Negativity is also recognized as being realistic. Politician after politician after politician have broken their promises, raised taxes, and lowered our standards for freedoms.

I can tell this early.

No, my opinion would be the same.

[Chandru]

Is it wrong to stereotype when there is so much proof in support?

Actually, yes, because then people stereotype by race, and that causes racism.

Anyway, your predictions probably are correct.

[Biggalo]

You may say that Obama does not do and he may claim that he doesn't, but he does. Seriously, like every other politician, he takes donations from huge corporations. He may say that he's not taking money from lobbyists, but that doesn't make it true. It's incredibly naive to think you can trust someone you do not even know.

Politicians these days are put under the microscope. Everything they do is investigated to the littlest detail. If Obama said he wasn't taking money from lobbyist when he was, I'm pretty sure somebody would have found out and we would be old news by now.

And what about Lincoln? Lincoln was a politician and he never broke any promises...
Well, he did suspend Habbeus Corpus and started to throw people he suspected to be conspirators in to jail, and I think (not sure) he was the first to impliment an income tax, but both of those could be justified.

Not all politicians are the evil, lying scandalous people you make them out to be. Some of them, believe it or not, truly care about their country or state or city and want to improve it and make a good name for themselves.

[Tolni]

Politicians these days are put under the microscope. Everything they do is investigated to the littlest detail. If Obama said he wasn't taking money from lobbyist when he was, I'm pretty sure somebody would have found out and we would be old news by now.

And what about Lincoln? Lincoln was a politician and he never broke any promises...
Well, he did suspend Habbeus Corpus and started to throw people he suspected to be conspirators in to jail, and I think (not sure) he was the first to impliment an income tax, but both of those could be justified.

Not all politicians are the evil, lying scandalous people you make them out to be. Some of them, believe it or not, truly care about their country or state or city and want to improve it and make a good name for themselves...
....At some point,yes.Also I think that this idea is good.Only one change Not to be in the "Just for fun forum" but to be a subforum in "General Chat."

[Waitor]

Politicians these days are put under the microscope. Everything they do is investigated to the littlest detail. If Obama said he wasn't taking money from lobbyist when he was, I'm pretty sure somebody would have found out and we would be old news by now.

And what about Lincoln? Lincoln was a politician and he never broke any promises...
Well, he did suspend Habbeus Corpus and started to throw people he suspected to be conspirators in to jail, and I think (not sure) he was the first to impliment an income tax, but both of those could be justified.

Not all politicians are the evil, lying scandalous people you make them out to be. Some of them, believe it or not, truly care about their country or state or city and want to improve it and make a good name for themselves.

I think the majority of politicians have a generally good inclination of improving their respective countries, but not all of them have good enough (or publicly accepted enough) ideas to be seamlessly integrated into American society. It's like, you have friends that don't have identical beliefs/ideas as you, but they're still your friend. Everybody has different opinions and perspectives, but colloquially these people aren't trying to run the country, so they're not really amplified.

I just think they're not trying to ruin your lives, they just have a different idea about how your life should be run. Totally not creepy at all. :rolleyes:

[walmartshrty]

Actually, yes, because then people stereotype by race, and that causes racism.

Anyway, your predictions probably are correct.

But I'm not stereotyping by race, I'm stereotyping about positions in society.

Politicians these days are put under the microscope. Everything they do is investigated to the littlest detail. If Obama said he wasn't taking money from lobbyist when he was, I'm pretty sure somebody would have found out and we would be old news by now.

And what about Lincoln? Lincoln was a politician and he never broke any promises...
Well, he did suspend Habbeus Corpus and started to throw people he suspected to be conspirators in to jail, and I think (not sure) he was the first to impliment an income tax, but both of those could be justified.

Not all politicians are the evil, lying scandalous people you make them out to be. Some of them, believe it or not, truly care about their country or state or city and want to improve it and make a good name for themselves.

Are they? And even if they are, you obviously are not paying attention to the details found by looking through the microscope. It is old news by now, BTW.

Were you alive during Lincoln? Can you really say he was an amazing president? You weren't there, you have no proof. All you have is what other people tell you, and that's all. Suspected conspirators, are not proven conspirators, those who weren't actually conspirators had their life and reputation ruined because someone wanted to play the game unjustly. Look at it this way, how would you feel if your life was ruined just because someone suspected you of something? Would that make you feel like the system was working? Would you feel that that was just and right? What about a family member? Would that anger you if your family was thrown into a jail cell because they were suspected for something?

If he did first impliment an income tax, that makes me dislike him even more. Is it ever right to take money from people who never did any harm to you? Isn't that called...oh yeah, thievery?

I'm all for letting people be free, no matter what their race, but I am heavily against government programs who claim that they help the people.

EDIT: And even if he was a great, caring president, that was over a hundred years ago!

[Chandru]

But I'm not stereotyping by race, I'm stereotyping about positions in society.

Yes, but if this gets out of hand, it could be about Obama's race.

[Lost One]

But I'm not stereotyping by race, I'm stereotyping about positions in society.
Yes, but if this gets out of hand, it could be about Obama's race.

Stereotyping about positions in society are more accurate then ones about race though. And it's true that politicians lie. They almost all do. Sure maybe there is like, one out of every hundred that don't. But seriously, Obama is making some bad moves as president reguardless of his race.

Race has nothing to do with being a politician.

[Biggalo]

But I'm not stereotyping by race, I'm stereotyping about positions in society.



Are they? And even if they are, you obviously are not paying attention to the details found by looking through the microscope. It is old news by now, BTW.

Were you alive during Lincoln? Can you really say he was an amazing president? You weren't there, you have no proof. All you have is what other people tell you, and that's all. Suspected conspirators, are not proven conspirators, those who weren't actually conspirators had their life and reputation ruined because someone wanted to play the game unjustly. Look at it this way, how would you feel if your life was ruined just because someone suspected you of something? Would that make you feel like the system was working? Would you feel that that was just and right? What about a family member? Would that anger you if your family was thrown into a jail cell because they were suspected for something?

If he did first impliment an income tax, that makes me dislike him even more. Is it ever right to take money from people who never did any harm to you? Isn't that called...oh yeah, thievery?

I'm all for letting people be free, no matter what their race, but I am heavily against government programs who claim that they help the people.

EDIT: And even if he was a great, caring president, that was over a hundred years ago!

Oh believe me, I payed attention to the microscope that they put both presidential candidates under. (I ran a political rally at my school. I would know.)

And no, nobody was alive during Lincoln, and yeah, textbooks are the best that we have, but they are pretty reliable resources in my opinion.

The civil war was a pretty harsh time, too. For example, Maryland was a state that allowed slavery. Maryland was also the state that had Washington D.C. in it, our nation's capitol at the time. Miraculously, Maryland was still a Union state during the war, but how? All of the politicians in Maryland that opposed to becoming part of the Union and wanted to join the Confederacy were thrown in jail. However, of course, it had to be done. Sure, the guys who were thrown in jail without even being charged with a crime were pretty sore about it, but it's just a sacrifice Lincoln had to make in order to handle the Civil War the best that he could.
As for the income tax, we also had to do that. We were printing a ton of money back then to try to pay off our loans to the other countries. We had a really bad case of inflation, and the economy wasn't doing so great after the war because of it. Sure taxpayers were pretty sore about just handing over their hard earned cash to the government, but it was for the best of our country.
But Lincoln handled the Civil War really well, he ended slavery, and I strongly believe that he was one of our nations finest. If there is to be an example of a politician who isn't the image that you portray them to be, Lincoln would be one of them. Yes, even if it was about a hundred and fifty years ago.
But seriously, why are you basing your opinion on Obama on a stereotype of politicians? What is this, high school?

[walmartshrty]

Oh believe me, I payed attention to the microscope that they put both presidential candidates under. (I ran a political rally at my school. I would know.)

And no, nobody was alive during Lincoln, and yeah, textbooks are the best that we have, but they are pretty reliable resources in my opinion.

The civil war was a pretty harsh time, too. For example, Maryland was a state that allowed slavery. Maryland was also the state that had Washington D.C. in it, our nation's capitol at the time. Miraculously, Maryland was still a Union state during the war, but how? All of the politicians in Maryland that opposed to becoming part of the Union and wanted to join the Confederacy were thrown in jail. However, of course, it had to be done. Sure, the guys who were thrown in jail without even being charged with a crime were pretty sore about it, but it's just a sacrifice Lincoln had to make in order to handle the Civil War the best that he could.
As for the income tax, we also had to do that. We were printing a ton of money back then to try to pay off our loans to the other countries. We had a really bad case of inflation, and the economy wasn't doing so great after the war because of it. Sure taxpayers were pretty sore about just handing over their hard earned cash to the government, but it was for the best of our country.
But Lincoln handled the Civil War really well, he ended slavery, and I strongly believe that he was one of our nations finest. If there is to be an example of a politician who isn't the image that you portray them to be, Lincoln would be one of them. Yes, even if it was about a hundred and fifty years ago.
But seriously, why are you basing your opinion on Obama on a stereotype of politicians? What is this, high school?

OMG YOU MUST BE JOKING. A POLITICAL RALLY. Well then, all hail Biggalo, he must know everything about politics. :O
In your opinion a textbook is a valid resource of information. However, you have no proof, you have no alive witnesses. Basically, you are gathering information out of what could be a fictional book.
I honestly think that smaller countries are better equipped to handle government. Why? Smaller and more organized. I am against slavery, yes, but no one said those politicians had slaves. They just had a different opinion than good ol' Lincoln.
Shouldn't people have the choice to hand over their money or not? Those people didn't ask the government to go into debt and print a lot of money. But they were still punished for it. I believe that is wrong. People should not have to be punished for other people's mistakes.
If one wants to help others, yes, they should be allowed to, but forced? No.
In your opinion, yes Lincoln was the very model of a modern major general, but you still weren't a alive when Lincoln was president. You never met him, you never even met anyone who knew him. So why have so much faith in him? Have faith in yourself, not some guy from the 18th century.
High-schoolers are a lot like you, they have too much faith in the system. They have too much faith that power does not corrupt. They believe things can change with more of the same. Not I, Biggalo, not I.

[Biggalo]

OMG YOU MUST BE JOKING. A POLITICAL RALLY. Well then, all hail Biggalo, he must know everything about politics. :O
In your opinion a textbook is a valid resource of information. However, you have no proof, you have no alive witnesses. Basically, you are gathering information out of what could be a fictional book.
I honestly think that smaller countries are better equipped to handle government. Why? Smaller and more organized. I am against slavery, yes, but no one said those politicians had slaves. They just had a different opinion than good ol' Lincoln.
Shouldn't people have the choice to hand over their money or not? Those people didn't ask the government to go into debt and print a lot of money. But they were still punished for it. I believe that is wrong. People should not have to be punished for other people's mistakes.
If one wants to help others, yes, they should be allowed to, but forced? No.
In your opinion, yes Lincoln was the very model of a modern major general, but you still weren't a alive when Lincoln was president. You never met him, you never even met anyone who knew him. So why have so much faith in him? Have faith in yourself, not some guy from the 18th century.
High-schoolers are a lot like you, they have too much faith in the system. They have too much faith that power does not corrupt. They believe things can change with more of the same. Not I, Biggalo, not I.
Yes, a political rally. One that the entire school watched that me and a few other students put together with the help of teachers. Trust me, I knew quite a bit about the election. You did, however, have a very nice attempt at sarcasm. As for textbooks possibly being fictional, ridiculous. It's not like there weren't historical accounts of what happened back then.
Also, the people who didn't want to pay the American income tax were always free to move to Canada.

I do realize that there is corruption in our governernment. You have Rob Gravoyajitch(however that's spelled), the guy who tried to sell Obama's vacant senate seat. There's always the classic example, Watergate. However, I do feel that for the most part, the politicians that have run our country were not significantly corrupted. How do you think America has progressed from a country of people who just wanted to get away from England to a superpower?

EDIT/OFFTOPIC: You should read Animal Farm if you already haven't. You would like it.

[Aeroviper]

I would like to see the proof behind Obama is already making "some bad moves".

[Chandru]

I would like to see the proof behind Obama is already making "some bad moves".

They'll probably give you some words out of context and say, "OMG!!!!!!!! OBAMA IZ A LIEING DOGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!"

[Lost One]

I would like to see the proof behind Obama is already making "some bad moves".

Okay, not everyone would think ALL his moves that I think are bad, are indeed bad; homosexual marriage and abortions (which I don't wanna talk about because I don't want to get called prejeduice against anything and such). But I am mostly upset becuase he wants to outlaw homeschooling, and there is a website, (have to find it later, I lost it) that talks about him signing a paper to outlaw homeschooling. Is there something wrong with homeschooling? Seriously! He also wants to take prental rights away from parents. Okay, can't tell your kids to go to school. Let them go get all drugged up! No. I won't stand for that, sure I don't like doing EVERYTHING my mum says, but she is my mum for crying outloud! His tax plans suck, but so does everyone elses.
I really need to track down these links....

[Chandru]

Okay, not everyone would think ALL his moves that I think are bad, are indeed bad; homosexual marriage and abortions (which I don't wanna talk about because I don't want to get called prejeduice against anything and such). But I am mostly upset becuase he wants to outlaw homeschooling, and there is a website, (have to find it later, I lost it) that talks about him signing a paper to outlaw homeschooling. Is there something wrong with homeschooling? Seriously! He also wants to take prental rights away from parents. Okay, can't tell your kids to go to school. Let them go get all drugged up! No. I won't stand for that, sure I don't like doing EVERYTHING my mum says, but she is my mum for crying outloud! His tax plans suck, but so does everyone elses.
I really need to track down these links....

About home schooling, it is a good thing (I guess), but where is your social life?

[Waitor]

Okay, not everyone would think ALL his moves that I think are bad, are indeed bad; homosexual marriage and abortions (which I don't wanna talk about because I don't want to get called prejeduice against anything and such). But I am mostly upset becuase he wants to outlaw homeschooling, and there is a website, (have to find it later, I lost it) that talks about him signing a paper to outlaw homeschooling. Is there something wrong with homeschooling? Seriously! He also wants to take prental rights away from parents. Okay, can't tell your kids to go to school. Let them go get all drugged up! No. I won't stand for that, sure I don't like doing EVERYTHING my mum says, but she is my mum for crying outloud! His tax plans suck, but so does everyone elses.
I really need to track down these links....

I agree about abortion/marriage, but not about homeschooling. I don't think homeschooling is a qualifiable education experience, even if the public school system is at times flawed. I can understand how parents wouldn't want to expose their children to the 'outside world,' but how long can you live in your safe bubble for before you have to go out and face what's actually happening in the world? You spend your life locked up alone in your house homeschooling and then graduate to a world that is a lot less friendly then you thought it would be.

[walmartshrty]

I agree about abortion/marriage, but not about homeschooling. I don't think homeschooling is a qualifiable education experience, even if the public school system is at times flawed. I can understand how parents wouldn't want to expose their children to the 'outside world,' but how long can you live in your safe bubble for before you have to go out and face what's actually happening in the world? You spend your life locked up alone in your house homeschooling and then graduate to a world that is a lot less friendly then you thought it would be.

Can I ask you a question? In what world do you need to know what they teach you about Math, History, Science, English, etc.? Do you know any homeschooled people? Because the ones that I have met are more willing to learn than any drone you find in the public school system. Yes, the public school system is flawed, in fact, it is deeply flawed at it's very roots. If you go up to a person who went to high school and you ask them a basic question about something you just learned in pubic school, they will not be able to answer it. In fact, they will be floored. They say that you remember things by repeating them, by practicing them. Usually you repeat things you use, however if you don't use those things and they are useless to you, chances are you will forget them. You have to face the facts; the things they teach you in school, will not help you in your later on life. You will lose four years of your life, learning useless facts.

Homeschooled children are encouraged by people who deeply care for them. Their parents give up having a job, or at least give out some time to their children to teach them. The typical homeschooled child gets out at least once a week to socialize with other children. Their school day takes less than half your day, so they can learn other things that are important to them. They have the freedom to do what they want, to learn what they will, whenever they want. Maybe even things that they will use throughout their lives. And I am so tired of people calling homeschooled children unsocial, imprudent, and lacking of education. Because while you work at a desk job at minimum wage, they will be doing what they love.

[Biggalo]

I agree about abortion/marriage, but not about homeschooling. I don't think homeschooling is a qualifiable education experience, even if the public school system is at times flawed. I can understand how parents wouldn't want to expose their children to the 'outside world,' but how long can you live in your safe bubble for before you have to go out and face what's actually happening in the world? You spend your life locked up alone in your house homeschooling and then graduate to a world that is a lot less friendly then you thought it would be.

I had a couple of friends that went off to college and they were homeschooled, and they were very intelligent. They told me about their typical day at homeschooling, and I really didn't find anything that was wrong about it. The material they were taught was all regulated and they still had to take standardized tests, and from what I saw, they were very sociable people. To be honest, I envied them. They had a lot of flexbility with their schedule. If they went on a vacation to Washington D.C. over the weekend, those two days, even though everybody else has the day off, can be counted as school days. They took a lot of trips like that and "got out of school" a full month before I did.

It might be that he's going to require home schooling parents have teaching credentials before they can teach their child. However, I'd need to look more in to the situation since I haven't heard much about it, so I don't really have much of a valid opinion.

[Chandru]

Today Obama decided to grant states rights to set tougher emissions standards on cars. :D

Surely you can't find fault in that.

[Lost One]

About home schooling, it is a good thing (I guess), but where is your social life?

Homeschoolers do have dances, activies, and stuff. There are homeschool communities, and sports, you can't forget that. Homeschoolers have just as much as a social life as anyone else, only less people that backstab them. I went to public school one year (last year). I don't remember really learning anything. I got straight A's because I pretty much was self-sufficiant after being homeschooled 8 years of my life. My social skills were just as good as any other kid there.

I agree about abortion/marriage, but not about homeschooling. I don't think homeschooling is a qualifiable education experience, even if the public school system is at times flawed. I can understand how parents wouldn't want to expose their children to the 'outside world,' but how long can you live in your safe bubble for before you have to go out and face what's actually happening in the world? You spend your life locked up alone in your house homeschooling and then graduate to a world that is a lot less friendly then you thought it would be.

We get to see what's happening in the world. If school is your only social life, I feel bad for you! And who said we are locked up alone in our houses. As I said before, there are homeschool events. Sports. Dances. There are even some places that have "co-ops" (Homeschool parents teach a group of kids a certain subject). I know some priavte and public school kids that attend the coops for extra school credits. Educationally, what is wrong with homeschooling? I am homeschooled and it worked well enough for me that I am attending college 3 years early.

Homeschooled children are encouraged by people who deeply care for them. Their parents give up having a job, or at least give out some time to their children to teach them. The typical homeschooled child gets out at least once a week to socialize with other children. Their school day takes less than half your day, so they can learn other things that are important to them. They have the freedom to do what they want, to learn what they will, whenever they want. Maybe even things that they will use throughout their lives. And I am so tired of people calling homeschooled children unsocial, imprudent, and lacking of education. Because while you work at a desk job at minimum wage, they will be doing what they love.

Thank you! Also homeschoolers are usually more self-motivated becuase of their situation, if they finish early, they get to do stuff early. Finish school for the week in 3 days, get two days off. A lot of colleges actually perfer homeschoolers. Kids in public school don't get to leave early if they finish early, that right there is less motivation, and then they don't have a choice of being there and are allowed to mess around way more and not do their school and the teacher might not even care. What motivation is that if the teacher doesn't care? I am glad somebody doesn't think homeschooling is a bad education, because honestly, it isn't.

[Waitor]

Homeschoolers do have dances, activies, and stuff. There are homeschool communities, and sports, you can't forget that.

I hate school dances. Nothing but encouragement of teenage infatuation. Golly!

We get to see what's happening in the world. If school is your only social life, I feel bad for you! And who said we are locked up alone in our houses. As I said before, there are homeschool events. Sports. Dances. There are even some places that have "co-ops" (Homeschool parents teach a group of kids a certain subject). I know some priavte and public school kids that attend the coops for extra school credits. Educationally, what is wrong with homeschooling? I am homeschooled and it worked well enough for me that I am attending college 3 years early.

Well, from personal experience, I am doing much worse in homeschooling than I was at a physical school. Yes, I am a homeschooler.

Thank you! Also homeschoolers are usually more self-motivated becuase of their situation, if they finish early, they get to do stuff early. Finish school for the week in 3 days, get two days off. A lot of colleges actually perfer homeschoolers. Kids in public school don't get to leave early if they finish early, that right there is less motivation, and then they don't have a choice of being there and are allowed to mess around way more and not do their school and the teacher might not even care. What motivation is that if the teacher doesn't care? I am glad somebody doesn't think homeschooling is a bad education, because honestly, it isn't.

I wish you'd stop generalizing the population here (like I did earlier). Everybody's experience is different. I spend more time writhing over difficult assignments and criteria, and more time stressing over exams and curriculum because I don't have a proper teacher. People go to get education degrees for a solitary reason: they want to learn how to teach -- and I would like to learn from those people.

I had a couple of friends that went off to college and they were homeschooled, and they were very intelligent. They told me about their typical day at homeschooling, and I really didn't find anything that was wrong about it. The material they were taught was all regulated and they still had to take standardized tests, and from what I saw, they were very sociable people.

If the home school system is as much a mirror of the public/private school system, than why are we attacking public schools?

To be honest, I envied them. They had a lot of flexbility with their schedule. If they went on a vacation to Washington D.C. over the weekend, those two days, even though everybody else has the day off, can be counted as school days. They took a lot of trips like that and "got out of school" a full month before I did.

I said before, I spend more time having difficulty with my assignments than I did last year when I was in school.

It might be that he's going to require home schooling parents have teaching credentials before they can teach their child.

I would like that, yes.

Can I ask you a question? In what world do you need to know what they teach you about Math, History, Science, English, etc.?

Earth?

Do you know any homeschooled people?

Hi! Me. Guilty.

Because the ones that I have met are more willing to learn than any drone you find in the public school system.

Again, a sad overgeneralization. Maybe because I've been moved into a country by my family where I don't speak one word of the native language, maybe because I haven't seen anyone my age since the summer, just maybe, I have a twisted view of homeschooling. Because my only homeschooling experience has been in complete isolation with uncharacteristically low marks, just maybe I'm biased. But that doesn't change the fact that what's happening to me is happening. I am willing to learn, but I'm not getting the information.

If you go up to a person who went to high school and you ask them a basic question about something you just learned in pubic school, they will not be able to answer it. In fact, they will be floored. They say that you remember things by repeating them, by practicing them. Usually you repeat things you use, however if you don't use those things and they are useless to you, chances are you will forget them. You have to face the facts; the things they teach you in school, will not help you in your later on life. You will lose four years of your life, learning useless facts.

Okay, I'm homeschooled, right? I'm learning the same freakin' things I learned in public school. Universities require certain, albeit useless, courses in order for you to get accepted, and these courses are the same no matter what school system you partake in. I'm forced to just memorize things, because that's the only way I can make the grade at this point.

The typical homeschooled child gets out at least once a week to socialize with other children.

On the other hand, a typical child will spend 30+ hours a week with their peers. Hm.

Their school day takes less than half your day, so they can learn other things that are important to them.

Not always. What if what's important to them is relationship building? Friendships? Team dynamics? All the things you learn by being surrounded by people your age all the time?

And again, school takes longer in my case. My education isn't communicative.

They have the freedom to do what they want, to learn what they will, whenever they want.

Last time I checked, they run on a very similar curriculum. What one learns, the other learns. University requirements. Maybe things work different in Canada.

Maybe even things that they will use throughout their lives. And I am so tired of people calling homeschooled children unsocial, imprudent, and lacking of education. Because while you work at a desk job at minimum wage, they will be doing what they love.

If what they love is working at minimum wage jobs, then yes. Again, most universities require courses taught in both systems -- so really, what difference does it make? Learn useless things with your friends, or learn useless things with your mom?

I'm tired, irrational, and unhappy right now. A thousand apologies.

/endrant.

[LOL]

How ironic, this thread turned into the forum you wanted.