Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

This last point was about school transportation. You made a direct and immediate connection to being a citizen. Marvellous.

I'll bet you forgot that my own sister went to Catholic school. Of course, we handled the transportation issue ourselves since it was the family's decision to send her there instead of public school.

The other question is why I even bothered answering your gibberish.

Take him seriously? Hope that is subtle humour dear man?!

But you've only ever been taught "revisionist" history…

You see, it's okay to discriminate against those you disagree with… That's what government is for, isn't it?)

In fact, you'll be amazed at what people get away with on account of religion. For instance, the Amish are allowed to stop their children's education after completing the eighth grade because of religion.

It's just that the Religious Right cannot impose it's version of morality on everyone else through laws that flagrantly violate the first and fourteenth amendment. It really is that simple, so quit crying crocodile tears about christians supposed being discriminated against, especially since I see no evidence of Christianity in you.

In fact, you'll be amazed at what people get away with on account of religion. For instance, the Amish are allowed to stop their children's education after completing the eighth grade because of religion.

There are, here (as elsewhere, I'm sure) minimum requirements for graduation/certification...

[…] the permission for the Amish to stop educating themselves beyond the eighth grade is just empty nonsense […]

If the majority and the Obama administration are right that a boy who identifies as female has a right under Title IX to use the girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities, then it would be discrimination on the basis of gender identity to bar a boy who identifies as male from having the same access. After all, the difference between the two biological males is that they have different gender identities. How could one of the males be allowed to use the girls’ facilities and the other be barred from doing so if Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity?
In short, the Department of Education’s 1975 regulation (which is still operative) is incompatible with a reading of Title IX that would extend its bar on sex discrimination to discrimination on the basis of gender identity, for such a ruling would nullify the very protection that regulation recognizes or provides.
(Ed Whelan, from a newsletter I subscribe to…

Oh! I get it: Only government schools provide "education"… Might not a better word be "indoctrination"?

A legal system that you don't understand, although it's many centuries old, is "without a system"?

But let's try something else, ersi: Title IX cases… (Of course, you can say — Why? By the same token, I'd say why do you bother about this topic? I know. Would you tell the others?)

Quote

If the majority and the Obama administration are right that a boy who identifies as female has a right under Title IX to use the girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities, then it would be discrimination on the basis of gender identity to bar a boy who identifies as male from having the same access. After all, the difference between the two biological males is that they have different gender identities. How could one of the males be allowed to use the girls’ facilities and the other be barred from doing so if Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity?
In short, the Department of Education’s 1975 regulation (which is still operative) is incompatible with a reading of Title IX that would extend its bar on sex discrimination to discrimination on the basis of gender identity, for such a ruling would nullify the very protection that regulation recognizes or provides.
(Ed Whelan, from a newsletter I subscribe to…

Of course, logic means nothing (I'll wait, until you can cast an argument in syllogisms… ); and tradition means nothing. All that really matters is political correctness and the weird way progressives go about their way of achieving and maintaining power…

We are (the U.S. and NATO) pledged to defend Estonia, if it is attacked.

I understand the history of such.

Case law serves its purpose when your outside relations consist of dividing and conquering and internal relations aim to mislead and disorientate […]

For now, Estonia has defended the U.S. (and NATO) by contributing to the toppling of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq (W. appealed to NATO charter article 5).

The 9/11 terrorist attacks
The United States was the object of brutal terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The Alliance's 1999 Strategic Concept had already identified terrorism as one of the risks affecting NATO’s security. The Alliance’s response to 9/11, however, saw NATO engage actively in the fight against terrorism, launch its first operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and begin a far-reaching transformation of its capabilities. Moreover, it led NATO to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the very first time in its history.
An act of solidarity
On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, and for the first time in NATO's history, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s principal political decision-making body – agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5. On 2 October, once the Council had been briefed on the results of investigations into the 9/11 attacks, it determined that they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5.

Is it cynical ignorance or ignorant cynicism? ersi, why do you think everyone should be regimented?

Quote from: ersi on 2016-04-25, 23:33:45

For now, Estonia has defended the U.S. (and NATO) by contributing to the toppling of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq (W. appealed to NATO charter article 5).

That's rather disingenuous.
(See, for example, this…):

Quote

The 9/11 terrorist attacks
The United States was the object of brutal terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The Alliance's 1999 Strategic Concept had already identified terrorism as one of the risks affecting NATO’s security. The Alliance’s response to 9/11, however, saw NATO engage actively in the fight against terrorism, launch its first operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and begin a far-reaching transformation of its capabilities. Moreover, it led NATO to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the very first time in its history.
An act of solidarity
On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, and for the first time in NATO's history, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s principal political decision-making body – agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5. On 2 October, once the Council had been briefed on the results of investigations into the 9/11 attacks, it determined that they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5.

Excuse me, miss, your slip is showing…

It doesn't say what eighth grade is in each state.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-04-25, 13:18:02

It doesn't say what eighth grade is in each state.

8th grade is ~14 years old, depending on the pupil's birthday. You're usually 17 or 18 when you graduate secondary school in the US, probably similar to Estonia.

What is different though is that the school compulsion ends here when you finish primary school.

Looks like you over there have to continue to the secondary school (except the Amish).

Quote from: ersi on 2016-04-27, 00:33:24

Looks like you over there have to continue to the secondary school (except the Amish).

Yup! Libs (ours, not yours…) or Progressives -as I'd call them- fought hard for that!
I suspect the purpose was to preclude any majority of young people who could and would think for themselves… Because our masters in government know what's best, and they don't have time to explain or argue! (I'm sure you're familiar with that attitude?!)

I'd agree, the U.S. (and NATO) haven't much helped the Baltic states…

So, the U.S. (and, likely, G.W. himself…) twisted enough arms to make the meek and mild European in NATO invoke Article 5!
Or do you go so far as to call them spineless?

What's your military experience, ersi? Were you, like Howie a Boy Scout?