Well let me explain a fool to you.

No, let me to explain a fool to you, since you're clearly not qualified.

1-> a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.

2-> a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.

3-> a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid:

to make a fool of someone.

4->an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.

5->a weak-minded or idiotic person.

Now, what were you saying re: liberals?

It wears many hats but in the case of Liberals, it is in regards to their total hypocrisy and double standard when it comes to any issue.

Let's see here. Hypocrisy and double standards are dishonest, but they don't really qualify as a lack of judgement or sense; rather, they are often used effectively to push an agenda by conservatives and liberals alike. So, this doesn't pass for 1. Certainly not for 2 either. 3 could be used to describe those who have been tricked by those using these tactics, but not for those using the tactics in question. 4? Could be applicable, but not necessarily, and doesn't really support what you're trying to do here. 5? No, not really here either. Looks like you failed bro, suggesting definitions 1, 3, and 5 apply to you yourself!

An example would be how you make some lame example how I am suppose to be ok with Government taking my money to pay for your public schools but nobody helps me pay for my private schools. I must pay twice!

I never said you were supposed to be ok with it. By all means complain, and rail and vote against it. Unlikely that you'll get popular support to cut spending on public schools much more, and unlikely that if you did the government would cut taxes rather than spend the leftover funds elsewhere, but by all means try. Doesn't change the fact that you are not paying for public schools. You are paying the government for the multitude of benefits it provides to everyone; this includes public education for children. The government is spending the money it has received legally via taxation in part on schools. Again- this is not you spending money on schools, and it is not the government spending your money on schools. Possession and any form of control over the spending are lost the moment you pay the taxes.

Should your boss be able to dictate how you spend your paycheck?

If you dislike public school and choose to enroll children in private school, that is entirely at your expense, and you don't forfeit your tax burden by opting to do this. Suck it up. Remember that fool bit we talked about? 1, 3, and 5 again here.

Now tell me how you would like it if Government started forcing you to pay for my private schools but I do not have to pay for your pubic schools. How would you feel about that? Would you explain away how once the Government takes your money, it is their's to do with what they want? Or would you be angry?

You treat this as an either/or proposition. It's not- I say both. I would explain away how once the government takes the tax money, they can spend it as they wish. I would also be very angry at the legislation that stripped government spending from public schools and assigned it to private schools, and would oppose such. I find it very unlikely that this hypothetical bill of yours would pass, however. And there is a big difference between the government supporting a private school that a handful of children attend vs the government supporting a public school system that is open to every child.

There in lies one example of a fool.

Nope, we already covered that.

You can not ever see how it feels if the shoe is on the other foot and you know why that is?

Complex question. I can in fact see how it feels if the shoe is on the other foot, as I've explained.

Because Big Liberal Government will always support you and your kids but for those who want no part of the PC public schools, there is no help.

No, I don't qualify for any assistance due to my income. And you're also wrong re: no help for those who don't want public schools. There is always homeschooling, giving parents and guardians the requirement to teach the approved curriculum but the freedom to present it and spin it however they wish, so long as the child learns the material. One can homeschool ones children, and in that environment can freely open classes with prayer, teach evolution and creationism side by side, or any number of permutations, so long as the curriculum requirements are met. If one doesn't have time for that, one can pay for private school. If one can't afford private school and doesn't have time to home school, public school is their only option- and for all its faults, it's better than no education.

We are not even asking for help. We want our school taxes to go towards our school of choice. How terrible a thought.

Even if you aren't asking for it, it's there as I detailed. And you're still not getting it. They are not "your taxes." The moment it's given to the government, it belongs to the government. It is a terrible thought. Should an employer be able to dictate what his or her employees are allowed to spend their income on or not? Should a customer be able to dictate how a business utilizes the price the customer pays for the provided goods/services? Should a creditor only be allowed to spend the loan repayments made by the credited on goods and services authorized by the credited? As citizens of the US, the government is simultaneously our creditor (for the many services we enjoy directly or indirectly for the years before we enter the workforce), our employee (employed to manage things at a scale and with a level of authority that individuals typically cannot), and a business to whom we are clients (for the services we continue to enjoy after entering the workforce and paying taxes.)

It is NOT your tax money. I can't reiterate that enough.

Now there will always be the fools who spew the "separation of church and state" lie, nowhere in the constitution, to explain why they get special treatment.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. In other words, religious reasons are insufficient to pass laws- it still requires a vote. Furthermore, this means that it is illegal to either promote or obstruct the practice of a religion within reasons. That is in fact separation of church and state- the state cannot ignore the electorate and pass laws based on what the church wants, nor can it actively promote any one religion over another.

Also, what special treatment?

Yet one more example of a fool.

Also not an example, we already touched on this.

It's always nice how Liberal Government comes up with reasons why people sending their kids to private schools can not spend their taxes on their own schools.

It doesn't need to come up with a reason. As I said before, it is not "their" taxes. Everybody above a certain income threshold pays taxes. Those taxes go to a number of things, among them education. It doesn't matter if you have children in private school, children in public school, or no children whatsoever- you owe taxes, and some of those taxes go to public education.

Opting to put your child in a private school does not remove your tax obligation, nor should it.

So, back to the whole fool thing...

1- No, I don't qualify as a fool by this definition, though it works for you.

2- Not quite, as I'm not a professional jester by any stretch- although you could sometimes call me an amateur one. Doesn't work for you either.

3- No, I don't qualify as a fool by this definition, though it works for you as well as 1 does.

4- I qualify for this one, and freely admit it. I am a long-winded debating fool by this definition.

5- No, I don't qualify as a fool by this definition either, though it similarly works for you, just like 1 and 3.

Glaring examples of how you fit into definitions 1, 3, and 5 are present throughout your posts, and need no further clarification.

Methinks you should not throw stones from your glass house! Thank you, though, for clarifying what you meant by "fool-" now we know its just another word that you use without understanding, and can safely ignore it :)

What's really chilling here is how it demonstrates your hatred of the lower class. You want the ability to refuse paying whatever portion of ones tax burden supports public schools, with those who can afford private school only paying for that, and those who don't have children paying nothing. The ones who need public schools the most are those who would not be able to have any education otherwise- mostly lower middle class and lower class. You would see the poor go completely uneducated, probably so you can exploit them more easily because capitalism.

"Well let me explain a fool to you. It wears many hats but in the case of Liberals, it is in regards to their total hypocrisy and double standard when it comes to any issue." Again, I don't think you know what hypocrisy means.

"An example would be how you make some lame example how I am suppose to be ok with Government taking my money to pay for your public schools but nobody helps me pay for my private schools. I must pay twice!" You are not forced to attend private school, so how is that a double standard?

"Now tell me how you would like it if Government started forcing you to pay for my private schools but I do not have to pay for your pubic schools. How would you feel about that? Would you explain away how once the Government takes your money, it is their's to do with what they want? Or would you be angry?" Since the school is PRIVATE, it would be absurd for the government to force anyone to pay for it.

"There in lies one example of a fool. You can not ever see how it feels if the shoe is on the other foot and you know why that is? Because Big Liberal Government will always support you and your kids but for those who want no part of the PC public schools, there is no help. We are not even asking for help. We want our school taxes to go towards our school of choice. How terrible a thought." Take some freaking responsibility and try to change the curriculum then!

"Now there will always be the fools who spew the "separation of church and state" lie, nowhere in the constitution, to explain why they get special treatment. Yet one more example of a fool. It's always nice how Liberal Government comes up with reasons why people sending their kids to private schools can not spend their taxes on their own schools." You mean the lie of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution backed by over a hundred years of bipartisan precedent? And what "special treatment"? No religion gets special treatment in public schools.

Hogwash.......................................................................................................