Stupid World

[Oscar]

Why would he?

Why don't you explain us, what your reasons are for not having a communal interest in the general welfare and education of the next generation.



non working parent = usually the Mother of the future generation, and hopefully more and more the Fathers of the future generation.

And no there is no other reason to have paid parental leave for at least 3 month, paid for and or subsidised kindergartens, free education including higher education other than to offer the best upbringing to all of the future generation. It takes a village blah blah blah

However, I really would like to see your reasoning to the opposite. I know paying taxes for services that one does not use is painful, but as a "Nation" should we not have an interest to invest in the "next" generations of adults that will run this country?

The question is not about education, but about the taxpayer subsidising the stay at home parent.
Fertility has been a lifestyle choice for several generations now, so why are people who cannot/don't want to/are past child baring age expected to subsidise this activity?

[Ocean1]

Why would he?

All I'm asking for is a simple answer, compared to the usual non-stop criticism of policies from the motherland it's a doddle, shirley?

Why don't you explain us, what your reasons are for not having a communal interest in the general welfare and education of the next generation.

But I do. It is absolutely without doubt the single most important aspect of the next generation's welfare that they are wanted by their parents. Squeezing one out and dumping the responsibility for it on the local taxpayer funded daycare centre is not in the kids best interest.

Not ever.

[blue rider]

They accepted a lot of money and that was (allegedly) part of the settlement. They could give the money back and sing like birds.
Speaking of money, aren't you outraged they gave up their principals for 750k?

But mainly, you are giving half the story:



Money for principals and more half-arsed propaganda from you, what a world indeed.

you forgot

the reason for the payout:

A 10-year-old boy and his 7-year-old sister have been forbidden from discussing fracking for the rest of their lives under the terms of a court settlement with several gas companies. According to Mother Jones, representatives of Range Resources Corporation — one of the gas companies named in the settlement — confirmed in court that both the parents and children of the Hallowich family are prohibited from discussing the health issues and environmental factors that drove the family to relocate from their farm in Mount Pleasant, PA.

as per quote from the linked article

Mr. Villari: You both understand and accept that as written the settlement agreement may apply to your children’s First Amendment rights as well?
Mrs. Hallowish: Yes.
[…]
Mr. Villari: And you accept that because you, as adults and as legal guardians and parents of these children, are accepting these terms and conditions because you believe it is in the bet interests of not only them but your family?
Mr. Hallowich: Yes, and health reasons. We needed to do this in order to get them out of this situation.

The lawyer of the Company:

Later in the same hearing, attorney James Swetz, representing Range Resources, asserted that the ban should extend to the Hallowich family children, a 10-year-old son and a 7-year-old daughter.

“I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family,” Swetz said. “We would certainly enforce it.

He said, she said blah blah blah

Range spokesperson Matt Pitzarella told the Post-Gazette that Swetz’ assertion that the children should be included in the gag order is “not something we agree with.” The company, he said, has never issued gag orders on children and “we don’t believe the [Hallowich] settlement applies to children.”

Villari disputes this version of events. He told the Post-Gazette that when Swetz made his statements about the gag order, he assured the court that he “had the full authority to speak on his client’s behalf.”

The non-disclosure agreement, Swetz said in court, “extended to the minor children” and that the company would be “still insisting on the full extent of those obligations.”

[Oscar]

you forgot

the reason for the payout:



as per quote from the linked article



The lawyer of the Company:


He said, she said blah blah blah

Blah, blah, blah is right - they took the money, that makes them a part of the machine.
Either give it back or STFU.

[blue rider]

All I'm asking for is a simple answer, compared to the usual non-stop criticism of policies from the motherland it's a doddle, shirley?




But I do. It is absolutely without doubt the single most important aspect of the next generation's welfare that they are wanted by their parents. Squeezing one out and dumping the responsibility for it on the local taxpayer funded daycare centre is not in the kids best interest.

Not ever.

I just want to clarify, you are talking about all the children birthed in NZ? And you are talking about all NZ women who at some stage squeezed out one or more children and then dumped the responsiblitly on the local taxpayer?

The ones doing the squeezing and dumping are the mothers, wifes, sisters, daughters, nieces, aunties, grandmothers of New Zealand?

Yes?

Because all of these working and non working parents at least at some stage used local taxpayers to raise their children, and if it is just to go to a hospital for some safe squeezing.

I would even venture so far, that long long long ago, when ocean1 was little, his mother would have squeezed him out in a hospital, she or his father would have taken him to a doctor or dentists in case of need, that he would have gone to school and university etc. etc., and that his parents would receive a state pension for their old days.

Yes, this is what you are talking about? I do understand you correctly?

[mashman]

So no real reason, then.

Wasn't that long ago "childcare" didn't exist. Children grew up none the worse for it, they learned to socialise just fine without professional oversight.

So again, in proper adult language, why would someone available 24/7 to care for their own kids need a taxpayer paid subcontractor to do it for them?

Back in the day kids could play in the street without fear of being runover too... or could go to the park that's now a mall... or went to the playgroups that were setup by parents to share the care and supervision of the kids in a social setting... to give the parents a bit of a break from the kids and to be able to get shit done. We're not back in the day any more.

[mashman]

They accepted a lot of money and that was (allegedly) part of the settlement. They could give the money back and sing like birds.
Speaking of money, aren't you outraged they gave up their principals for 750k?

But mainly, you are giving half the story:

Money for principals and more half-arsed propaganda from you, what a world indeed.

Tis the kids being gagged that I take issue with.

And just in case you missed it "Later in the same hearing, attorney James Swetz, representing Range Resources, asserted that the ban should extend to the Hallowich family children, a 10-year-old son and a 7-year-old daughter."

[blue rider]

Back in the day kids could play in the street without fear of being runover too... or could go to the park that's now a mall... or went to the playgroups that were setup by parents to share the care and supervision of the kids in a social setting... to give the parents a bit of a break from the kids and to be able to get shit done. We're not back in the day any more.

childcare ca. 1912......lol

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...dren-s-Crusade

[mashman]

childcare ca. 1912......lol

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...dren-s-Crusade

Yeah I read that the other night, great read and can't bling you again for it... but come on, kids have it so good these days.

[Oscar]

Tis the kids being gagged that I take issue with.

And just in case you missed it "Later in the same hearing, attorney James Swetz, representing Range Resources, asserted that the ban should extend to the Hallowich family children, a 10-year-old son and a 7-year-old daughter."

I didn't miss it, and it's probably wishful thinking by the company brief as it infringes the kid's first amendment rights (but I realise that you will swallow any old shite as long as it's printed on the interweb).
Notwithstanding that, the parents can always give back the money..

[mashman]

I didn't miss it, and it's probably wishful thinking by the company brief as it infringes the kid's first amendment rights (but I realise that you will swallow any old shite as long as it's printed on the interweb).
Notwithstanding that, the parents can always give back the money..

Unfortunately it looks as though the parents waived those rights on the kids behalf.

[Oscar]

Unfortunately it looks as though the parents waived those rights on the kids behalf.

Not forever.
As soon as they become adults in the eyes of the law, the first amendment would kick in.
I seem to be boring you - does the truth bore you?
You're all about the headline, aren't you?

[mashman]

Not forever.
As soon as they become adults in the eyes of the law, the first amendment would kick in.
I seem to be boring you - does the truth bore you?
You're all about the headline, aren't you?

Dunno about that. Would the company be able to enforce the family gag order?
bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... the boring bit is you waffling on about why I posted the links and I'm getting bored with having to point out that, as per usual, you are spectacularly wrong.

[Brian d marge]

Don't worry about it... in 2 or three yeas you'll be able to plug your socket into a kid to listen to the wireless.

I can already find them in the dark without turning the light on , listening to the wireless And a cup of tea in the morning

one loves technology

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

You're going to have to explain why a non-working parent would need commercial childcare.

And why taxpayers would fund it.

go and ask you mom ..

now make her work at least 25 hours ...And look after the kids full time

Stephen

ps you dont have kids do u .......