Why is the left so strongly opposed to school choice?
Because “school choice” is a misnomer. Advocates of “school choice” want you to think that they care about you and your children. In reality, they only care about themselves.If you can “choose” your childrens’ school, then it is your responsibility to get your kids there. Why would there be buses when you can “choose” a school nearby or on your way to work?If you can “choose” your childrens’ school, then it is your responsibility to pay for it to run. Why would taxes do that? You wanted your kids to go there, why should others pay for staffing and supplies?If you can “choose” your childrens’ school, then it is your responsibility to make sure the curriculum isn’t a load of bunk. Why would there be educational standards when you can just “choose” another school if you don’t like the one your kid is going to?It’s underhanded and nefarious.Basically, the rich only want to pay for their kids to have good schools and screw the “great unwashed” (i.e. you and I). They learned long ago how to couch plutocratic policies in populist-sounding language to make the less-politically-literate (which is most folks) think they are supporting something that is common sense, when they are really shooting themselves in the foot.ALL schools should be fully funded, supplied, staffed, and maintained. All schools should have strong, expert-devised curriculums in a wide variety of subjects (not just STEM). It should not matter where you go to school, because a world-class education should be the birthright of every, single American child.That’s why I oppose “school choice”.
Do you think being "left handed" is a choice?
Yup...Jesus said:"But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing" Matthew.... You should hide the left hand,in your pocket at all times...lol I'm actually right-handed but somewhat ambidextrous,as a drummer and often purposefully use my left hand for tasks,that I would normally use the right... The genetics involved in right/left hand tendency,are complex,however those who have a tendency for either,may be encouraged to rather learn the other or both...
Since left TCS after two months there as a fresher, and I received a bill regarding final settlement charging me for the bond amount of 48,000, so should I pay it?
You don't need to pay anything.Just because an agreement is notarized with a stamp paper attached, doesn't mean that it is defensible in court. In layman's terms, the stamp paper merely says that an agreement did take place. But if TCS were to take you to court for breaking it, the court will rule that this agreement is unconstitutional because it is in violation of your rights. Courts have already made this ruling before in the past, so a legal precedent is already set. The case would not last long.This is similar to how a law can be passed in the parliament but later if a petitioner challenges it in court, and the law is found to be in violation or in contradiction of other legal tenets, then the court can strike it down.TCS knows well that these agreements cannot be defended in the court. They are never going to take you to court, because they already know they'll lose. But making an agreement is not illegal, so they do it anyway. Simply because it scares and discourages less-informed employees from leaving before 2 years.What the government needs to do it make this agreement bullshit illegal and make people more aware about this widespread scam.I left my first company without paying my bond. In fact, I challenged them to sue me. Ofc, they didn't. At my next job when they wanted me to sign a bond, I told them, "You know as well as me, that these bonds don't hold in court". You should've seen the look on that HR person's face. But that wasn't a win for me... They reduced my monthly salary and told me that I would be paid 2 lacs together after 1 year, thus ensuring that I would have to stay for a year if I want my money. In fact, this is what most companies do now. TCS can't because they don't want to pay so much in the first place, which is why they resort to these empty legal threats.
Why are Catholics so intolerant of people making their own choices?
It seems many can't accept it when people follow their heart and make up infuriating sayings like "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" and "non-practicing Catholic" to apply to people who don't want anything to do with the church and have left. If someone joins another Protestant church, they obviously don't want anything to do with the Catholic church or see themselves as Catholic in any way. If someone joins another religion altogether, this is also true. If one becomes an atheist, it's blatantly obvious. It's pretty disrespectful to insist that they have a "right" to anyone ever baptized Catholic and anyone as such is obligated to follow their rules that people from other traditions don't have to, it's almost like they view it as a branding or forced tattooing. Makes being raised Catholic into a bit of a curse. Other denominations don't seem so intolerant or ridiculous about that. You'd never see the Methodists for example insisting this for people baptized Methodist but who have joined another church, religion or just done away with it altogether.
Why do conservatives love stay-at-home moms so much?
Is this it? Is this the best question you could come up with? What a lame brain!!!