Instead he merely did it to a strong US ally to benefit a long-time US adversary. An adversary we have practically as many sanctions on as is feasible before it becomes a declaration of war.
I don't know what crime this is. Logan Act violation? But at this point Starlink is being used as a strategic asset in a US ally's war and should be seized by the US government as a military asset.
I’m sure that DOD lawyers are taring through the contract they signed with him. But, since the dumb SOB admitted to it, if the contract doesn’t have a provision to let him do this they can sue him under carriage laws. Ending with the government taking away his operating license and siezing his operating network. The DOD has been wanting to create their own such network in any case.
As the Tampa Bay Times reported, Step Up for Student’s new guide to approved expenses for recipients of PEP vouchers in the 2023-24 academic year authorizes the purchase of theme park tickets. Theme park tickets were previously a prohibited expense, but Step Up for Students’ “reconsidered after hearing from parents about the potential benefits.”
…
Other approved expenses for all homeschooled students this academic year include swing sets, foosball tables, air hockey tables, skateboards, kayaks, standup paddleboards, dolls, and stuffed animals.
Insanity. And, of course, this is homeschooling parents all doing this.
I can defend every single item on that list except air hockey tables when you consider physical education is part of schooling and stuffed animals can be used to communicate some concepts to young kids.
Why does the state need to fund dolls and stuffed animals or any of those other things for homeschoolers when teachers have to buy those things out of their own pocket if they even do? And those kids don’t get to play with them after school. It’s a two-tiered system and it is absolutely unfair.
That doesn’t justify what I was talking about at all. And even in that case, the child gets to play with the swing set after school, unlike kids at public schools.
Again- kids at public schools can only play on those playgrounds at recess. These homeschoolers can play with their swingsets all the time. That is a two-tiered system.
Of course it’s a two-tier system. Do you think every parent is rich enough to survive on a single income while the other parent homeschools their children?
Welfare though I doubt any single parent is homeschooling. In my buddy’s case they are part of an atheistic group of homeschoolers and they share teaching responsibilities.
Why should people like a single mother not have access to the same vouchers despite their children going to public school? Or does that particular social program not need to be utilized by everyone?
They do have access to these programs but they likely cannot use them. Unless you want an incredibly authoritarian system there cannot be a state where all programs will be used by everyone.
Go back and read my posts. I said available to everyone and they are available to everyone. If your circumstances mean you cannot avail yourself of them that does not mean they were not available.
Is that really that hard to wrap your brain around?
If your circumstances mean you have no choice to put your children in public school because you’re a single mother working two jobs just to support your children, it is not available to you. It simply isn’t. I have no idea why you think everyone can homeschool just because you know someone who does.
The state is not preventing single parents from accessing it. It IS available to the single parent. The only people who cannot access this are childless people.
You seem to not know what a two tiered system means. A single mother working two jobs has no possibility of accessing that money. Again, you think anyone can homeschool and that is patently false.
I don’t think everyone can homeschool. I never said they could.
A single parent being unable to afford to homeschool does not mean the money is not available to them. The money is available but their circumstances prevent its use. That is why I said your confusion is over what “available” means.
Your inability to homeschool does not mean the program is not available to you. You could choose to homeschool and get the money if you want.
The availability of the funds is based on whether you choose to homeschool not whether it makes financial sense for you to do so which us why I keep saying they are in fact available to all parents because they are.
If they will talk to you Ultra Orthodox Jews can explain exactly how you do this as there are thousands of people in those communities who homeschool and have no income.
Again, some people can’t make that choice. Because it isn’t always a choice. You say you don’t think anyone can homeschool, but you keep talking as if they can. Unless everyone can homeschool, there are two tiers because some people are literally unable to access those funds. They do not have that choice to make. So no, they aren’t available to all parents since they aren’t available to poor single mothers working multiple jobs. They cannot make the choice to homeschool no matter how much you think they have that option available to them.
No it’s like saying you have an option to participate in x program but choose not to because of y. No one is stopping you from accessing x other than your choice which is exactly what these people are facing.
Now you’re just arguing in bad faith. The fact that they can choose to take the money means the program is available to all parents of school aged children.
How can they choose to take the money if they can’t choose to homeschool their kids? The only answer I can come up with based on what you are saying is that they are choosing to be poor.
The fact that they cannot take the money because of other circumstances does not mean they are being prevented from accessing it. Since they aren’t being prevented from accessing this money by anyone other than their own decisions you cannot claim the money is not available to them. It is available and they are choosing not to take it.
It really seems like you do not understand what “available” means.
You need to look up what “available” means then because that is your confusion. There is milk available to me right now but my choice not to drink it because Im lactose intolerant does not impact the fact it is available to me.
Nope. You can still drink milk if you’re lactose intolerant unless you can’t afford milk. You can’t access that money unless you can afford homeschooling or private schooling.
Again, this is no different from claiming I have access to a Ferrari. I just can’t afford one.
Ok now you need to learn what “access” means. Im hoping English is not your primary language.
That is a false equivalence as you will be stopped for attempting to purchase a Ferrari if you do not have the money. In fact they credit check you before any talk of the deal begins.
In the case of this program NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU OTHER THAN YOU WHICH IS WHY IT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU.
Except the fact that the money is only available to people who don’t have kids in public school, and they can’t have kids in private school or homeschool them, so they do not have access to those funds. They simply don’t.
They do because they can choose to homeschool. As the only thing that is preventing them from taking this money is their own decisions and choices it is completely inaccurate to claim it is not available. It is available and they choose not to take it.
If someone stopped them then you could claim it isn’t available but that is not the case.
Again- a single mother working two jobs cannot choose to homeschool no matter how many times you claim they can. That is not a choice they can make. It isn’t. Why you keep saying it is, that’s beyond me.
The fact they they are making a choice is why we can say it is available. If they could not choose it then it would not be available.
Im not joking you really do not seem to understand what “available” means. You really want this to be two tiered and it isn’t. I promise you that the Ultra Orthodox community next to me is both very poor and almost entirely homeschooled through Yeshivas.
They aren’t making a choice. They can’t make a choice. They have only one option. Why don’t you understand that? There is absolutely no way they could choose to homeschool their kids. None.
Because they do have a choice. Im not trying to be an asshole here but you really seem to not understand the words you are using here.
They have a choice to take the money and homeschool or not take the money and send their kids to public. The fact that they cannot make ends meet if they took the homeschooling money does not make it unavailable to them.
The fact that they can choose to take the money means it is available.
Because their decision not to take the money is a choice.
The only way it would be not available to them would be if someone else was preventing them from taking the money. That is not the case. The money is available but they are not taking it.
The only people this money is not available to are people with adult children or childless adults.
Yes but for each swingset purchsed using state funds for a homeschool kid provides for 1 student whereas each swingset purchased using state money can provide for multiple classrooms of students.
That homeschool swingset is now private property not useable by anyone else that helped pay for it.
People choose homeschooling, fine. Homeschool should never be funded by the public, unless public school is not available or the student cannot attend for legitimate reasons.
You choose to homeschool? Great, you homefund it, too.
It won’t go that far unless people stop wanting to live in Florida. Since they are still building condos at the 500k+ level as fast as possible, I doubt they see significant decline.
would he have to even visit Moscow though.. i don't see Putin doing much in public anyplace.. where the hell does he hide all day.. and what makes you think Putin is brave enough to show himself in front of oligarchs..
I love that they say, “the Statue of Liberty has four fingers” (and that’s how you know this was planted by a foreign agent provocateur), when the title says, “democratic & Freedoms.”
Oh quit being so obtuse. They only generated 143 billion dollars in profit last year. How can they be expected to pay their employees a living wage like that??
After all, if they took 140 of that billion and divided it among their 2.1 million global retail employees, that’d only be 66,666 each with a 1.4 million left over. Hardly worth doing, obviously. After all, what will the shareholders say??
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.